Gee I wonder if she has a video for the atheistic liberal crowd too? You know she does. Instead of God Bless America she's probably like and may Church be forever seperated from government, Amen.
I'm not buying into the holy Hillary bit at all. __________________
Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
Posted: 23 Jul 2007 19:18 Last Edited By: Tim
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
Hillary mixed up on religion! Funny!
Ok before you Hillary fans get yourselves all worked up yeah, somebody took her out of context, but it was funny. To hear the whole thing click on Hillary on Vouchers You all do know that most old Democrats were klan members right. It's like one of those political secrets the Dems don't want anybody knowing about. Hey, I didn't make that up. Rush Limbaugh said it. __________________
Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
Posted: 01 Aug 2007 23:06
Registered User Currently Offline
Posts: 9
Join Date: Jul 2007
I believe it is wrong to judge people's sincerity of faith.
Posted: 02 Aug 2007 00:20
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
Well you have to be able to make some judgements as to sincerity of one's religion in politics if it becomes a part of their campaign rhetoric. __________________
Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
Posted: 25 Aug 2007 19:13
Registered User Currently Offline
Posts: 137
Join Date: Aug 2007
Tim's right, and if she really said she believes in white supremacy, then she's lost the vote of every American who believes in Equal Rights. Then again, it could just be a slam against Obama.
Bear in mind that Clinton has had a prepared speech for every religious denomination that tells them their welfare is her top priority. I've heard that on Rosh Hassanah 2000, she was witnessed in Times Square with a yamulke & noisemaker shouting "Happy New Year!" Probably just someone's joke, but that sums her up fairly well. The woman is a noisy poser, and very little else.
JFTR, I have no problem with having a female president, but on one condition:
IT'S NOT HILARY!
GOParty
__________________
Any fool can criticize, condemn, and complain. And most fools do! - Benjamin Franklin
Posted: 25 Aug 2007 21:20
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
Quote: and if she really said she believes in white supremacy
Technically it was taken out of context, but I wouldn't be surprised if she really did believe in white supremacy. After all the Clintons tend to only believes what the polls tell them to believe in public. Who knows what they really believe in private. __________________
Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
Posted: 25 Aug 2007 22:46
Registered User Currently Offline
Posts: 10
Join Date: Aug 2007
Hillary? Religious?? Ha, she'd tell everyone she was a Muslim if she thought it would help her get votes.
I heard this guy on some tv show talking about how Hillary has changed into a Christian and how it's okay for her to be a Christian because she won't let her personal morals dictate how she votes on issues.
Man, let me tell you, we don't need a president who will be swayed by every little wish of popular opinion and has no strong moral judgment of her own. We need somebody (man or woman) who will stand up for what they think is right EVEN when it's not a popular thing to do.
Posted: 26 Aug 2007 01:08
Registered User
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
Quote: We need somebody (man or woman) who will stand up for what they think is right EVEN when it's not a popular thing to do.
OK, based on that, would you vote for an atheist? __________________
But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
Posted: 26 Aug 2007 01:39
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
Quote: OK, based on that, would you vote for an atheist?
Sorry pak I probably wouldn't. I can't see an atheist agreeing with me politically enough, unless it was just on money issues and defense. Doubtful social issues would be anywhere near my stance on the issues.
Quote: I heard this guy on some tv show talking about how Hillary has changed into a Christian and how it's okay for her to be a Christian because she won't let her personal morals dictate how she votes on issues.
Isn't that like a slap in the face to hear crap like that? We need somebody with personal morals, and not somebody chasing after polls all day long. I suppose libs are happier when a president has no morals.
Quote: Ha, she'd tell everyone she was a Muslim if she thought it would help her get votes.
You're right that's exactly the kind of thing that ticks me off about the clintons. __________________
Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
Posted: 26 Aug 2007 03:26
Registered User Currently Offline
Posts: 10
Join Date: Aug 2007
Quote: OK, based on that, would you vote for an atheist?
One of my best friends from college is an atheist. He's a pretty good guy, I might vote for him, but unfortunately he's an extreme liberal and we disagree on most political subjects.
My problem with voting for an atheist is that most of the ones I've met don't believe in absolute truth. It's even hard to get them to say what they believe is right and wrong, they only want to talk about exceptions to the rule. That, for me, is a big turnoff.
I want a president to say, "This is what I believe, this is what I stand for, and come hell or high water, I'm not backing down."
Posted: 26 Aug 2007 03:43
Registered User Currently Offline
Posts: 137
Join Date: Aug 2007
Quote: We need somebody (man or woman) who will stand up for what they think is right EVEN when it's not a popular thing to do.
I feel the same way, Rog. And when it all falls down, That's what President Bush has been doing all along: giving the country what it needs, despite what it wants.
Unfortunately, the democrats, media, and anti-war protesters are constantly acting like bratty toddlers, screaming "ICE CREAM! ICE CREAM!" when their parents are trying to make them eat their vegetables. But considering that analogy, democrats have always been crybabies, haven't they?
GOParty
__________________
Any fool can criticize, condemn, and complain. And most fools do! - Benjamin Franklin
Posted: 26 Aug 2007 20:17
Captain America
Quote: That's what President Bush has been doing all along: giving the country what it needs, despite what it wants.
Really?
We needed a war in Iraq? There are evil despots all over the world. Saddam did not have WMDs (bad intel or lies, which do you believe?), nor was in league with al Qaeda, which was largely confirmed in November 2001.
And if there needed to be a war in Iraq, can you say we needed it to be run so poorly? Billions of dollars unaccounted for?
Hundreds of thousands of weapons lost (and being used now to arm the militias, so when we pull out (and we eventually will, whether it be months or years), all sides will be armed to the teeth?
Or to have U.S. political hacks appointed to top positions in the rebuilding effort (similar to what this administration did with FEMA, MSHA and others)?
Or thousands of Americans dead — with an undersupplied and overextended force playing occupiers? Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis? Millions of Iraqis displaced becuase their country's infrastructure is destroyed?
Did we really need that?
Why not have committed those resources to Afghanistan, or securing our ports and borders?
Seriously — no matter where you stand on domestic and foreign issues, whether liberal or conservative — this administration (and the Congresses from 2002-2006 that didn't ask the tough questions) is friggin' awful.
Posted: 26 Aug 2007 20:34
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
Quote: Cap is an FDR Democrat, all the way.
That's cool as long as he isn't a Ted Kennedy or Clinton Democrat.
Quote: We needed a war in Iraq?
Well one thing you have to agree on, is that a military option to all the terrorist activity in the world was bound to happen. We are addressing the terrorist threat. Could the whole operation been done better, or a different strategy used. Maybe, but never forget the fact something had to be done. You might not like the choices Bush made. Everyone has a right to believe what they want on that score. I just get upset when folks act like we shouldn't do anything but try and make nice with terrorist. I'm not saying you are one of those guys. All I gather for sure is you aren't very pleased with Bush's strategy. __________________
Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
Posted: 26 Aug 2007 21:01
Captain America
I absolutely don't want to make nice with the terrorists, and a military option was being done in Afghanistan – where the people that attacked us had come from (well, the actual hijackers were mostly Saudi, but al qeada was based there). I wanted – still want – a thriving Afghanistan to be our centerpiece in beating these guys.
Not just his strategy: I am and have been against the Iraq War since before it was launched. There were plenty of sources debunking the yarn the admin was spinning in 2002 and 2003, but very few people seemed to listen.
And, just for the record, I do not exult in having been right (for one of the few times in my life). Nor am I particularly pleased to see people with whom I disagree proven wrong. I just know we are in a tight spot and the guy at the helm doesn't seem fit for duty.
In fact, I think he's trying to hold out and dump this on a successor, whether a repub or dem, who will have to pull out.
Posted: 26 Aug 2007 21:06
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
Hey have you been to my Cap site Captain-America.us. Is that the handle you use there? This isn't Danny is it? I don't think I've seen a post from Captain America in a long time.
Quote: I absolutely don't want to make nice with the terrorists
Good, me neither. Let's give them hell no matter where they are. __________________
Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
Posted: 26 Aug 2007 21:15
Registered User Currently Offline
Posts: 247
Join Date: Aug 2007
Wow, well said Captain America.
I'll take it from the opposite perspective. How HAS Bush given this country what it needed? What victories can he claim?
And regarding HClinton, can ANY of you prove she's not legitimate when she's discussing her religious faith? Of course you can't, unless you can prove to the rest of us that you're mind readers.
I could accuse any of you guys of not being sincere in your faith and what argument could you put forth? None. You'd be in the same boat as HClinton.
So really, at the end of the day- there are plenty of reasons to be for or against the ole gal without pretending to have psychic powers.
And of course, this is priceless:
Quote: You all do know that most old Democrats were klan members right. It's like one of those political secrets the Dems don't want anybody knowing about. Hey, I didn't make that up. Rush Limbaugh said it.
Way to elevate the game on your new site Tim. I know this will come as a shock, but Rush only told you half the story.
As a matter of fact, sly political calculations on the part of FDR, Harry Truman, JFK and LBJ were instrumental in finally ending the legal persecution of black people in this country that much of the populace apparently wanted. Those sacrifices, to say nothing of the numerous other sacrifices made by people who have voted for Democrats, are not to be taken lightly.
I know you don't question Lord Limbaugh, but by attempting to obscure the record of Democrats on Civil Rights, he is lying to you about some of the few noble political acts regarding race that have taken place in the government of this country. You shouldn't be proud to repeat his words. Conversely, why don't you tell me what the Republican party has done to smoothe the racial divide since.... LINCOLN?
Before you answer however, I want you to take into consideration the common knowledge that it was Nixon's "Southern Strategy" that contributed to his win in 1968. This coincides nicely with the flight of many Southern Democrats from their party to the GOP.
Now, I'm not saying that the GOP is racist. Habitual actions determine what a person is, and the collective habitual actions of a group of people determine what a group is. I don't know what was in the heads of people as they fled the Democratic party in 1968 for Nixon- but it is safe to say that at least some of them, at least some of the time- were angry with the Democrats for protecting the rights of black people.
So the point is BOTH parties have harbored and courted the racist vote at some point or another. I know you know that Tim. You also know that lying by omission is still a lie.
Posted: 26 Aug 2007 21:53
Captain America
Found this through the CA site. Someone (Danny?) snagged CA and Winter Soldier was gone, so I went Nomad instead over there.
Posted: 26 Aug 2007 22:12
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
Quote: And regarding HClinton, can ANY of you prove she's not legitimate when she's discussing her religious faith? Of course you can't, unless you can prove to the rest of us that you're mind readers.
She must be of a different Christian faith than me. My Bible says, Thou Shalt not lie.
Quote: I know this will come as a shock, but Rush only told you half the story.
So half the Democrats were klansmen then like Rush said. Besides Abe, Reagan's conservative politics helped everyone regardless of race. Conservatism in general helps everybody with lower taxes and helping people help themselves instead of hand outs that string generations along.
It just so happens I know a few democrats, and I get the distinct impression that most of the white ones are at least mildly racist. They don't belong to a clan or anything they just like making fun of blacks with words that would get any public figures fired from office. That's one thing I can never figure out how one half the party hates the other part and still they get the black vote. I can't prove my assumption but you know the dems always say you don't have to prove nothing just put out there in public and it's automatically true.
Quote: Found this through the CA site. Someone (Danny?) snagged CA and Winter Soldier was gone, so I went Nomad instead over there.
Oh ok, well glad to have you at both boards, and oh Danny it's good to have you on board too even if you don't believe a word I say. __________________
Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
Posted: 27 Aug 2007 00:42 Last Edited By: GOParty
Registered User Currently Offline
Posts: 137
Join Date: Aug 2007
Tell me, Captain America(Wait a minute, aren't you dead?): Saddam was threatening to attack just about every western nation on the planet with the WMD's he claimed to have, so what was the President supposed to do? Sit around and wait for him to drop barrels of sarin on New York & L.A., or go in, remove the bastard, search for the weapons and destroy them before he hurts any more Americans?
OK, so we ended up just calling his bluff, but he had used chemical weapons in the past, and we had no reason not to believe he would do so again. And now, Iraq is (clumsily)becoming a democracy, we've eliminated terrorists by the thousands, and Saddam himself was brought to justice by his own people for crimes anot just against them, but against all of humanity.
Sounds an awful lot like we needed this war, and we've acccomplished all objectives we set out at the beginning. Now I do feel we should start pulling out, although that has to be done gradually, to the needed reforms we instigated over there stick.
If Captain America is too dead to read this online, please for ward this to captainamericasgrave@anc.gov
GOParty __________________
Any fool can criticize, condemn, and complain. And most fools do! - Benjamin Franklin
Posted: 27 Aug 2007 01:07
Captain America
Quote: She must be of a different Christian faith than me. My Bible says, Thou Shalt not lie.
Then Bush, Cheney, et al, are really out … but I'd say every politician has been guilty of a few.
Quote: Reagan's conservative politics helped everyone regardless of race. Conservatism in general helps everybody with lower taxes and helping people help themselves instead of hand outs that string generations along.
Um, crime and suicide rates went up in the 80s, as is typical of conservative governments. As well, those lower taxes added up to a huge national debt that Clinton and GOP Congress took care of. As well, Reagan's flawed economics are bearing fruit today as the mortgage holders nationwide go belly up. Not a big Reagan fan, outside of being a dependable Cold Warrior, I really thought he was more style over substance. Kinda like Fred Thompson with more experience.
People can be racist, whether they're Repub or Dem. But the GOP did pull many of the devout racists from the Democratic party during the '60s, despite the fact that many conservatives are not racist. So, they're gonna carry that taint for awhile. Guys like Trent Lott standing up for the douchebag Strom Thurmond doesn't help, either.
Posted: 27 Aug 2007 06:43
Registered User Currently Offline
Posts: 247
Join Date: Aug 2007
Ugggh... I'm gonna hate myself in the morning for typing instead of sleeping, but these were just too much.
Quote: Saddam was threatening to attack just about every western nation on the planet with the WMD's he claimed to have, so what was the President supposed to do? Sit around and wait for him to drop barrels of sarin on New York & L.A., or go in, remove the bastard, search for the weapons and destroy them before he hurts any more Americans?
This post reflects a serious lack of study on what Saddam had or didn't have. This issue takes more logic than anything else because the snow job in the US was of such a magnitude we're still not getting all the facts. Read up on back issues of the Economist or Foreign Policy if you want the real deal. OR check out the DOS intelligence at the time. It was correct enough to make Colin Powell second guess this stuff and attempt to dissuade the president from going in. Too bad he eventually caved and did what they asked of him.
Anyway- actually, we had heard precious little out of Saddam in years. He wasn't threatening anybody at this point because it wasn't in his best interest to do so. Also, take a look at what he was telling other countries like Russia, China and the EU. If you only read American newspapers, then you only got the part of the story that was least embarrassing to us. Saddam HAD to convince the world that he had WMD publicly, because he was still concerned about Iran on his border. Semi-privately, he erratically tried to convince US and the UN that he didn't have anything- which was true. When we started asking direct internationally publicized questions about his arsenal (that we originally supplied him with, btw)of course he had to bluff- or risk looking weak in a very dangerous part of the world. Of course, some would say our leaders already knew that. Headed into the invasion, I always wondered WHY we would send our troops into the one place on earth that Saddam could reach us with a weapon (addressed in a sec).
But you describe poison gas being dropped over cities. That is above and beyond even the logically false scenarios laid out by then National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice. You see, any 1st year political science major knows that it takes an intercontinental ballistic missile to attack the United States unless you are Cuba or Canada or Mexico or somehow similarly placed. Even then, you'd need an airforce of some sort- which Saddam hadn't had since 91. So if you didn't spot that logical flaw in their reasoning, it was the first way you'd been had (don't feel bad, the entire media so far as I could tell ALSO missed it).
But then there's terrorism right? Well, that is dealt with in the same chapter of that poli sci textbook- (essentially written by Nixon and Kissinger): Realism. Essentially, it says that nation states and their leaders act in their own self interest. They really don't have occasion to do otherwise.
So pretend you're Saddam. Why would you sponsor a terrorist to hurt the US? Even if successful- if the US finds out it was you, then you're toast. That's second strike capability. Iraq had none. And if you manage to conceal that it was you- why bother to have an act of terrorism? You can't make your political point in secret. So sure Saddam might have grinned when he saw 9/11. Sure he hated the US. But he had been in power for 30 years in a ROUGH section to govern. He wasn't dumb and he wasn't crazy (as the Bush people so often repeated). He wasn't going to attack the US with nothing to gain and everything to lose. So if you bought that Saddam was now a terrorist, then that was the second way you'd been had.
Regarding how things have played out- we all continue to be had over Iraq. The whole operation was planned from the get-go of the Bush presidency. That isn't conspiracy theory- it is in a letter from the Project For a New American Century neo-conservatives to Bill Clinton, it is again reflected in Bob Woodward's "Plan of Attack" and of course, there are motives aplenty. Really, it dates back to the arrogance of a bunch of wealthy former draft dodgers wanting to play "war" years later, with other people's lives- against the advice of one of the highest ranking combat veterans on the planet. They didn't understand anything about war in 03, and they continue to bungle it now, halfway to 2008. We continue to be had every time we send guys back for ANOTHER tour, spending billions of tax dollars on something that was doomed from its filthy conception. I'll say this for Ronald Reagan- when he knew he had screwed up in Beirut, he cut and ran FAST.
And finally, I think it is probably very important to mention that the erroneous "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq is not just a punchline. During the time we wasted lives and resources in Iraq and managed to turn the entire Middle East and most of the world against us, some to the point that they DID become terrorists when before they had not- we SHOULD have been making sure the Afghanistan problems had been settled. A report was issued two weeks ago that said al-Qaeda was now stronger than its pre-9/11 levels. The Taliban has regrouped completely on the Pakistani border. And somehow, the Bush people have gotten it as wrong as possible here as well. Bin Laden is recruiting under our noses and we're propping up a military dictator who can't even do what military dictators are supposedly good for: keeping order. Somehow, we are now locked into a fight not just with God knows who in Iraq, but also with Iran. We don't have anybody left to send to fight the people who bombed us!!!
So am I clear? Bush has gotten us into a situation we will not get out of easily. It really does matter if the President is smart- not just if he says every other word how resolute he believes himself to be. It doesn't help to be resolute if you're always wrong!
-----------------------------
Regarding the bit about Ronald Reagan helping black people, you have GOT to be kidding me. Reagan cut taxes on the wealthy, but people making less than 30,000 don't even pay taxes. Nor do poor people benefit from high interest rates, something Reagan was a fan of until he finally figured out they'd kill an economy.
A funny thing about supply side economics is that it presupposes that the wealthy WILL spend their money. It also presupposes they will spend it wisely- like starting profitable new businesses that will be around long enough to employ people. It doesn't say much when the wealthy put that money back into foreign labor, or lose it in Enron/Savings and Loan scandals, or just buy off politicians with the extra dough. It assumes that wealthy corporations are usually 1.)efficient and 2.)more benevolent than malevolent. Neither is necessarily the case. Airlines, cable companies and doctors are inefficient but they aren't replaced. Big oil is inefficient, but it isn't replaced.
The Reagan admiistration's never ending quest to dismantle the New Deal, (though it saved the asses of guys like him once) drove plenty of people into poverty. In the case of much of black America- just when some progress had been made, the drug situation and Reaganomics put people right back into poverty. As for this supposed liberation Reagan offered those on welfare- you'll note that it wasn't until the mid 90's that welfare reform was undertaken with bi-partisan efforts.
Quote: I can't prove my assumption but you know the dems always say you don't have to prove nothing just put out there in public and it's automatically true.
That too is a lie. I ask you all the time to prove the things you say. Usually, you attempt to change the subject to some question without an answer like "where did the universe come from?". You never want to take on your obvious misleading statements- like your attempt to paint the Democrats as racist while ignoring 100 years of commonly known history in which the D's fought like hell to get blacks some BASIC rights in this country. (BTW, Rush saying something does not constitute proof.)
I write and research A LOT to prove my points. That doesn't make me anything great- it just means that I have some respect for the intellect of people reading my words. A lot fewer people are going to believe that BS you toss around about "evil D's this, evil D's that" than you might think. For the record, I've met some great people and some weasels on BOTH sides and some better people in the middle. I'd say the common experience of most people in this country is that no one "team" is 100% right or wrong all the time. Disagree? Then you might be the minority here.
Posted: 27 Aug 2007 16:19
Captain America
Hey GOP, Just noticed your post.
Great points, most of which have been countered by Danny, who does do his homework and doesn't just spit blind rhetoric and sling insults.
But arming the Sunnis leads to short-term gains (they're not yet using them to attack us), but those gains are fleeting – like the ones we scored against the Russians in Afghanistan: Sure, it helped us bury the Soviets, but it led to large groups of well-armed Muslim radicals, many of whom formed a little group now known as al Qaeda.
And if you think what they have is really a functioning democracy, you really should read more.
Saddam was a scumbag, but we had kept him under wraps for years. He wasn't the guy to go after following 9/11. I would've happily taken bin Laden instead.
And Captain America never dies …
Posted: 27 Aug 2007 19:24 Last Edited By: Tim
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
Quote: How HAS Bush given this country what it needed? What victories can he claim?
I think the economy is pretty good for one.
Quote: Regarding the bit about Ronald Reagan helping black people, you have GOT to be kidding me.
No I'm not actually. A good economy knows no color. It helps everyone unless there was some kind of rule keeping black people from working in the 80's I don't know of.
And dude I was watching J.J on Good Times complain about Jimmy Carter all the time before Reagan took over, and I don't think the Evans got poorer after Reagan took over. The ratings might have slipped a little but that was inevitable. It happens to all shows.
Quote: D's fought like hell to get blacks some BASIC rights in this country
Dems fight like hell to get power nowadays.
Quote: Saddam was a scumbag
We agree on that for sure. At least there's one less mass murderer out there now. __________________
Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
Posted: 27 Aug 2007 19:36
Captain America
I bet Bush I would beg to differ that running up deficits is good economics, as he paid for them by raising taxes and losing an election.
The same thing will happen again: We are in debt to China, and at some point, we'll have to pay up. And that means more taxes. And it won't matter who's in the White House or Congress.
Hopefully, those taxes will be taken from the top 1%, who've been paying squat for five years.
Posted: 27 Aug 2007 20:06
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
Quote: Hopefully, those taxes will be taken from the top 1%, who've been paying squat for five years.
I've always heard percentage wise the rich actually pay more than their fair shair of taxes. Don't remember the numbers off the top of my head though. We all know that the rich have an increase percentage they are supposed to pay out. Isn't it like almost half of their income like 40 percent or so?
The thing with deficits is that I really believe Bush wanted to please the dems by spending on entitlement programs and thus make nice with them, but in the end it only angered conservatives, and the libs hate him anyway. Not a strategy I would have advised, and it shows you a Pres should forget about trying to please everyone and just do the right thing. __________________
Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
Posted: 27 Aug 2007 20:27
Captain America
Bush was trying to make nice with more than just Dems. Congress passed a bipartisan law requiring that the deficit be shored up. That required raising taxes or making massive cuts in welfare, military or medicare … the kind of cuts no one on either side really wanted to make.
Posted: 27 Aug 2007 21:15
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
I would like to have the specifics of what was spent when Bush first got in, but all I can say for sure is that over spending is not conservative. Bush made a mistake by doing it, but like I said I believe a lot of what he over spent on were issues dear to dems. Where's Rush limbaugh when you need some quick facts? __________________
Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
Posted: 27 Aug 2007 21:21
Registered User Currently Offline
Posts: 10
Join Date: Aug 2007
If Hillary is a Christian than she's also a practicing Catholic, Muslim and Buddhist. Give me a break, you think she's real? How many different American accents does she use on the campaign trail? Her southern one is my favorite.
I agree that we are in a tough spot in Iraq, I was not happy with the idea of the U.S. going preemptive on them in the first place, but now that we are there, I don't think we should up and leave those people to fight alone, not when we got them into this. I don't care how long it takes, as long as there are Iraqis who want to be free, we should stand with them and fight. The U.S. hasn't won a war since WWII because ever since Korea we have been known to tuck tail and run when things get rough.
If you want to talk about taxes, just look at the 10 million illegal immigrants who are already putting a strain on our health care, law enforcement, and education systems. By 2030 that number will surge to 50 million and then you'll start seeing real problems. I don't mind if the illegals who are already here stay. They work hard and most of them just want to take care of their families. The problem is, no one is protected. If an illegal gets in a car wreck and hits someone, they don't have to pay any fines or insurance, and if they do it while drunk they don't even go to jail. What if an illegal brings his family here and one of his kids gets killed or raped by an American? Under such circumstances an illegal may not report it to the police and risk getting deported. I know people like to turn a blind eye to this, but the current situation is not good for them or us.
Posted: 27 Aug 2007 21:45
Captain America
Well, Tim, I guess one of my main bones of contention is that many of the current crop of Republicans are not really conservative.
The Congress of 2002 and 2006 was the most free-wheelin' spending Congress in history … and it was a Republican majority. That can't be blamed on the Dems.
Back to Bush I: Sometimes you gotta spend the money. take the Minnesota bridge collapse. Congress wanted to tack on more to the budget to deal with failing infrastructure concerns, and Bush threatened a veto and said that the existing money should be spent. But that means other projects get shortchanged, which will lead to more broken bridges, roads, etc.
Also, let's make a deal: I won't pull "facts" from hardcore lefty opinion mongers, if you don't from drug-addled car salesmen or other wingers.
Both sides have jackasses to fudge facts and spew rhetoric. I try to make arguments from news sources. I am a lefty, but I see and understand many conservative viewpoints, and I think there is a middle that can be met.
Posted: 29 Aug 2007 07:01
Registered User Currently Offline
Posts: 137
Join Date: Aug 2007
Quote: But you describe poison gas being dropped over cities. That is above and beyond even the logically false scenarios laid out by then National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice. You see, any 1st year political science major knows that it takes an intercontinental ballistic missile to attack the United States unless you are Cuba or Canada or Mexico or somehow similarly placed. Even then, you'd need an airforce of some sort- which Saddam hadn't had since 91.
That may be true, Danny. OK, dropping barrels of sarin on our cities was a bad example, but he could have easily ordered some Republican Guardsman to plant a chemical or bioagent bomb in a London castle, a Jerusalem temple, or anywhere in between where we have/had allies. And that, my friend, any civilized nation would rule to be an act of terrorism, if not an act of war!
To see a scenario like this described in better detail, you should read Executive Orders by Tom Clancy. Now there's someone who had done all the homework for us conservatives over the past 20-or-more years, and given us an excellently illustrated set of what-ifs, one of which catastrophically came true on 9/11. Clearly, Reagan & Bush read the books, and Clinton should've gotten his nose out of his Penthouse letters, but I digress.
I also recommend Clancy's The Sum Of All Fears, Debt Of Honor, Rainbow Six, & The Bear And The Dragon. In several instances, you'll see what I'm talking about!
GOParty
__________________
Any fool can criticize, condemn, and complain. And most fools do! - Benjamin Franklin
But considering that analogy, democrats have always been crybabies, haven't they? 
