Opinion: Very depressed now [Archive] - The SuperHeroHype Forums

View Full Version : Opinion: Very depressed now

Malice

02-07-2008, 01:48 PM

Artos

02-07-2008, 01:56 PM

Genesis 1.0

02-07-2008, 02:00 PM

This is my opinion.
I dont like anyone running now...
Since Mitt bailed...I dont know where to go...

Hillary is not an option....
Obama I like, just dont like the policies
McCain kinda scares me....

I feel sick now.

Yeah, Mike's capitalized too late and he was my 2nd place to Mitt. Big Mac was at the bottom of my list and I don't agree with 3/4 of what Obama or Hillary advocate for.

Mitt was my last longshot.:csad:

SuBe

02-07-2008, 02:03 PM

This is my opinion.
I dont like anyone running now...
Since Mitt bailed...I dont know where to go...

Hillary is not an option....
Obama I like, just dont like the policies
McCain kinda scares me....

I feel sick now.
I feel the same. My only hope is that Huckabee is McCain's VP nod. Then there's some saving grace. What a dissapointing election year.:csad:

Genesis 1.0

02-07-2008, 02:05 PM

I feel the same. My only hope is that Huckabee is McCain's VP nod. Then there's some saving grace. What a dissapointing election year.:csad:

We're on the same page there, but I think we both know it's a long shot at best.:csad:

The Professor

02-07-2008, 02:05 PM

Sad that Romney dropped out. He honestly did still have a chance.

hippie_hunter

02-07-2008, 02:06 PM

Sad that Romney dropped out. He honestly did still have a chance.

No he didn't. He did very poorly on Super Tuesday. It killed his campaign.

CorpusBlack

02-07-2008, 02:08 PM

My only hope is that Huckabee is McCain's VP nod. Then there's some saving grace. What a dissapointing election year.:csad:

:up:

Malice

02-07-2008, 02:24 PM

*sobs sadly*

Well I guess I will vote McCain. Voting for either of the Democrats to me is a step in the wrong direction.

Raiden

02-07-2008, 02:34 PM

*sobs sadly*

Well I guess I will vote McCain. Voting for either of the Democrats to me is a step in the wrong direction.

IMO the country is already in a wrong direction after 8 years of Bush in the WH, and another GOP prez will just continue the status quo. I'd rather go for change and vote Democrat than stay on track.

SuBe

02-07-2008, 02:36 PM

IMO the country is already in a wrong direction after 8 years of Bush in the WH, and another GOP prez will just continue the status quo. I'd rather go for change and vote Democrat than stay on track.
Can you please elaboarate on "Change"?

Malice

02-07-2008, 02:38 PM

CHANGE (http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=294705)

The word has become a joke.

The Incredible Hulk

02-07-2008, 03:52 PM

Explore the candidates from some of the other parties and see what they have to say and if you agree, vote for them. If people stopped being slaves to the false assumption that our political system is setup as a 2 party system, things might REALLY change in this country. i'd rather vote for someone I believed in who I knew wasnt likely to win as opposed to someone I disliked solely because they have a chance to win.

Green Party: http://www.gp.org/index.php

Libertarian Party: http://www.lp.org/

Constitution Party: http://www.constitutionparty.com/

Communist Party: http://www.cpusa.org/

America First party: http://www.americafirstparty.org/

Marijuana Party!: http://www.usmjparty.com/ (sounds like fun :) )

Socialist Party: http://sp-usa.org/

Independence party of America: http://www.independencepartyofamerica.com/freedom/

StorminNorman

02-07-2008, 04:18 PM

I will vote for McCain if he runs against Hillary.

If its McCain v. Obama...

I could be swayed...

...to vote 3rd party.

Catman

02-07-2008, 04:51 PM

I feel sick now.

That's how I felt in 2004. But I voted for John Kerry since I didn't want another four years of Bush.

Communist Party: http://www.cpusa.org/

:dry:

The Professor

02-07-2008, 04:54 PM

No he didn't. He did very poorly on Super Tuesday. It killed his campaign.

Perhaps I was just swimming in vast sea of denial and wanted to see him go over McCain.

The Senator

02-07-2008, 04:59 PM

CHANGE (http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=294705)

The word has become a joke.

I do not use it in my papers for school or work anymore. I now use the word "reform," "different" or similar synonyms.

Genesis 1.0

02-07-2008, 06:09 PM

*sobs sadly*

Well I guess I will vote McCain. Voting for either of the Democrats to me is a step in the wrong direction.

Unfortunately, it looks like Big Mac is the last resort.:csad:

As to voting 3rd party, the highest percentage of votes was for what, Perot and it was 19% if I'm not mistaken. I'm going to cast my vote and it should actually make a difference, not voting for a losing effort for the hell of it. Big Mac holds a handful of my views, which is more than a say for the rest.:csad:

MaskedManJRK

02-07-2008, 06:16 PM

You're NOW sick of this election? Man, you're early. I was sick as soon as Kucinich left the race. Now it's just a matter of who's drink mixed with sleeping pills you go home with tonight.

Genesis 1.0

02-07-2008, 06:19 PM

I still plan to participate of course, but much of the enthusiasm is gone after seeing my last hope of a real Republican winning the nomination. Or at least the closest thing we had to it.

Zen

02-07-2008, 06:36 PM

Downhere

02-07-2008, 06:38 PM

I feel the same. My only hope is that Huckabee is McCain's VP nod. Then there's some saving grace. What a dissapointing election year.:csad:

Ditto that, this election year is definitely disappointing. My number one has been Huckabee but McCain seems to have the GOP nomination in the bag and like you I'm hoping for a Huckabee as VP nod, and even then I'm not that thrilled with McCain as President. On the democratic side, I honestly don't like Obama and I'm not a fan of Hillary, although I would prefer Hillary over Obama.

Honestly, the choices are pretty much horrible in my view.

Zen

02-07-2008, 06:43 PM

Ditto that, this election year is definitely disappointing. My number one has been Huckabee but McCain seems to have the GOP nomination in the bag and like you I'm hoping for a Huckabee as VP nod, and even then I'm not that thrilled with McCain as President. On the democratic side, I honestly don't like Obama and I'm not a fan of Hillary, although I would prefer Hillary over Obama.

Honestly, the choices are pretty much horrible in my view.

Why huckabee over McCain

and why Hillary over Obama

Pretty pweez with a giant gold ingot on top, lend me your perspective.

SuBe

02-07-2008, 07:15 PM

I was wondering if some of you can help me because i think alot of the people in here could give me good perspective on this...

Why do alot of folks on the right side of the line have angst against McCain... ?

what issues specifically dress him down so much and depress you.

is it immigration?

taxes...

what is it? and how did the other candidate you wanted differ from McCain?
I personally don't like his stance on Immigration, him not voting for Bush Tax Cuts, and McCain/Feingold is disgusting. (Essentially sold out your political free speech for a bill with his name on it).

Arkady Rossovich

02-07-2008, 07:47 PM

*sobs sadly*

Well I guess I will vote McCain. Voting for either of the Democrats to me is a step in the wrong direction.

How could you say that? Republicans are the ones who ruined America.

J. J. Jameson

02-07-2008, 08:12 PM

I can't vote (yet) but my views are largely Republican, but for some reason I still am supportive of Obama. Like many others have said, some of McCain's polices, the most prominent of which being his willingness to keep the Iraq War going and his wishy-washy voting pattern, make me shy away from him.

I don't agree with some of Obama's views (mostly about abortion), but I do think he'd put the country in a good direction.

Visceral

02-07-2008, 08:33 PM

martha's polishing the brass on the Titanic, man its all going down

Malice

02-07-2008, 08:36 PM

How could you say that? Republicans are the ones who ruined America.

If you believe it was a party that did it, then you are sadly misunderstanding Washington as it exists.

Washington has become an ineffectual entity. Rarely does anything really get passed that has any other then stopgaps and temporary solutions.

Granted there is a Republican in the presidency. A year ago, the Democrats came into power, and not a damn thing has been done there either.

It really is just a stalemate basically of ineffectual leadership across the board.

MaskedManJRK

02-07-2008, 08:57 PM

How could you say that? Republicans are the ones who ruined America.

I have no love for most of the Republican party at this point, but I have just as little for the Democrats. I think Bill Hicks said it best:

"'I think the puppet on the left is correct!' 'No, the puppet on the right is more to my liking!' But aren't both puppets connected to the same body? 'GO BACK TO BED AMERICA, YOUR GOVERNMENT IS PROTECTING YOU.'"

bunk

02-07-2008, 09:08 PM

Never liked Romney anyway. Good riddance.

BlackLantern

02-07-2008, 09:11 PM

Ignorant Americans are ruining America...people who still wont or cant look past race and gender, people who choose to revel in their own ignorance and crap on anyone who attempts to change things

Lightning Strykez!

02-07-2008, 09:18 PM

I liked Romney. Say what you want about his flip-flopping on the issues, but his hair was consistently perfect. ;)

terry78

02-07-2008, 10:13 PM

The one you like never gets elected. Just remember that...for the rest of your life.

The Senator

02-07-2008, 10:55 PM

The one you like never gets elected. Just remember that...for the rest of your life.

Not true for me! Eliot Spitzer became Governor of New York, and Jim Webb, Sherrod Brown, Claire McCaskill and Sheldon Whitehouse all became Senators :oldrazz:

LuiECuomo

02-07-2008, 11:24 PM

How could you say that? Republicans are the ones who ruined America.

Don't pay attention to the ignorant troll. Look at his stupid user title.

hippie_hunter

02-08-2008, 12:37 AM

Not true for me! Eliot Spitzer became Governor of New York, and Jim Webb, Sherrod Brown, Claire McCaskill and Sheldon Whitehouse all became Senators :oldrazz:

I have a feeling that Eliot Spitzer and Jim Webb will end up losing their seats.

If Bloomberg doesn't run for President, he'll surely run for governor of New York. And with Spitzer's falling popularity and set backs, he'll also surely win.

And Jim Webb shouldn't have beaten George Allen. He only won...barely...because Allen was an idiot and said macacca. It should have remained in Republican hands if it weren't for that one blunder and I think that seat will end up back in Republican hands. I think Gilmore will run for the Senate in 2012, since he will obviously lose in 2008 to Mark Warner and beat Webb.

StorminNorman

02-08-2008, 01:08 AM

How could you say that? Republicans are the ones who ruined America.

:lmao:

:lmao:

:lmao:

StorminNorman

02-08-2008, 01:15 AM

I spent a lot of time working for Romney's campaign.

I had lost a lot of interest in politics a few months ago - the GOP sickened me.

That is why Romney appealed to me. He was an outsider. A self made man. I liked that - I loved that about him. He was a candidate that had Reagan's charisma, he had the ability to make me feel incredibly proud for my country - yet at the same time made it clear he was going to fight to not keep it at its current level, but improve it. I have yet to get the same feeling from any candidate...but Obama. The difference is that Romney has experience and I believe his policies make sense.

McCain was a person I had little beef with early on. I was tired with the GOP - so a frequent enemy of the GOP wasn't such a bad idea. His immigration plan (a huge issue for me) was laughable, and I think (and hopes) he nows realizes that. I do like his position on foreign affairs, however.

My biggest problem is that as the months have gone on - McCain just doesn't...appear Presidential. While I don't have as many problems with Bush as most do - its an obvious fact that Bush's personality and lack of charisma has been a huge problem for him. McCain, I feel, has a similar problem. I think McCain also comes across more Bulldogish and simply angry.

I hope I am proven wrong. I hope McCain does well - simply because the current Democratic Party is far far far too liberal for me to ever even consider supporting.

bunk

02-08-2008, 01:22 AM

McCain gives the absolute worst speeches too. He has that weird melodic way of giving them where it feels he's reading me a bedtime story.

The Incredible Hulk

02-08-2008, 08:46 AM

As to voting 3rd party, the highest percentage of votes was for what, Perot and it was 19% if I'm not mistaken. I'm going to cast my vote and it should actually make a difference, not voting for a losing effort for the hell of it.

then you've completely missed the point of the political process in this country. That line of thought, shared by many, is what condemns us to only ever having either a republican or democrat in office every 4 years, which nowadays there really isnt that much difference anyway. If enough people didnt resign themselves to that line of thought, it WOULD make a difference.

The point of politics is to vote for the candidates that reflect your views, not vote for the "least bad" candidate or the candidate "who I have the most in common with who has a realistic chance of winning." Politics is about ideals and people, it's not a sporting contest where the ultimate goal is victory for the "team."

Frankly I'd love to see political parties abolished in this country, and have each candidate run on their own personal merits, which would cause more people to actually listen to what they're saying and not just go in and blindly vote for someone because of the political party they're affiliated with. I cringe when I walk into the voting booth and see those buttons that say "All Democrat" or "All Republican."

CorpusBlack

02-08-2008, 08:54 AM

Never liked Romney anyway. Good riddance.

:up:

The Senator

02-08-2008, 10:08 AM

then you've completely missed the point of the political process in this country. That line of thought, shared by many, is what condemns us to only ever having either a republican or democrat in office every 4 years, which nowadays there really isnt that much difference anyway. If enough people didnt resign themselves to that line of thought, it WOULD make a difference.

The point of politics is to vote for the candidates that reflect your views, not vote for the "least bad" candidate or the candidate "who I have the most in common with who has a realistic chance of winning." Politics is about ideals and people, it's not a sporting contest where the ultimate goal is victory for the "team."

Frankly I'd love to see political parties abolished in this country, and have each candidate run on their own personal merits, which would cause more people to actually listen to what they're saying and not just go in and blindly vote for someone because of the political party they're affiliated with. I cringe when I walk into the voting booth and see those buttons that say "All Democrat" or "All Republican."

I refuse to vote for a Republican in a national or statewide election, and it isn't out of blind association. Yes, Republicans may be pro-choice, or support Medicaid and Social Security, or any other so-called 'liberal' policy. But the Republican Party, to me, has evolved into a disfigured, rotten political force which thrives on oppression and the promotion of ignorance over values. As a homosexual apatheist, the Republican Party has rejected the idea that gays can live a normal family life style, that it is the homosexuals in this country destroying the virtues of the American family, that non-believers are the root of all evil in this country... that's what the root of this party has come out in favor of.

So, while there may be a candidate for Congress or Senate or whatever who supports most of my beliefs, I refuse to vote for him or her if they belong to the Republican Party. As Rep. Barney Frank said on "Real Time with Bill Maher," I would be doing a disservice to myself and everyone else in the gay community by supporting a candidate whose party would want to make my personal identity a crime. And I simply can't let that happen.

Zen

02-08-2008, 10:26 AM

sinewave

02-08-2008, 10:50 AM

McCain gives the absolute worst speeches too. He has that weird melodic way of giving them where it feels he's reading me a bedtime story.

i know. he's a very awkward speaker. if he ends up going up against obama i think that may hurt him quite a bit.

I refuse to vote for a Republican in a national or statewide election, and it isn't out of blind association. Yes, Republicans may be pro-choice, or support Medicaid and Social Security, or any other so-called 'liberal' policy. But the Republican Party, to me, has evolved into a disfigured, rotten political force which thrives on oppression and the promotion of ignorance over values. As a homosexual apatheist, the Republican Party has rejected the idea that gays can live a normal family life style, that it is the homosexuals in this country destroying the virtues of the American family, that non-believers are the root of all evil in this country... that's what the root of this party has come out in favor of.

So, while there may be a candidate for Congress or Senate or whatever who supports most of my beliefs, I refuse to vote for him or her if they belong to the Republican Party. As Rep. Barney Frank said on "Real Time with Bill Maher," I would be doing a disservice to myself and everyone else in the gay community by supporting a candidate whose party would want to make my personal identity a crime. And I simply can't let that happen.

:up:

my father-in-law gave my wife a pamphlet the other day titled something like "choosing your candidate: what any serious catholic should do" and it outlines their 5 main issues, which are (not positive about this order)

1. abortion
2. embryonic stem cell research
3. euthanasia
4. human cloning
5. homosexual "marriage" (and they do use the quotes)

of course they use misinformation and lies about the stem cell research, no big surprise. i really can't wrap my head around gay marriage ranking that high on their list of priorities, though. yeah, maybe the bible mentions something about gays, blah, blah, blah, but is it really that important to deny them that privilege, and "protect the sanctity of marriage" when over history there's been plenty of arranged marriages and shotgun weddings, not to mention revolving-door marriages and quickie divorces. is marriage even sacred anymore? was it ever? what about jesus' teachings on equality? it's so mind-numbingly backwards to me. isn't healthcare and education a little more important than controlling people's personal lives and denying them the same privileges as everyone else?

you're dead on about the oppression and promotion of ignorance over values, by the way. it's like they're taking the same approach to politics as they take to religion; blind allegiance and submission to authoritarian control, which leads to lashing out against those who dare to think differently or accept a scientific approach to a lot of things rather than simply following along without questioning what you don't understand.

MaskedManJRK

02-08-2008, 10:55 AM

How do the current democratic candidates stack up on alternative lifestyle issues?:huh:

None of them are good, really. With gay marriage, both Obama and Clinton are against it but "for 'civil unions.'" Edwards wasn't against it, but "wasn't sure" about it, his reasoning being, "Hey, I'm a 47 year-old Babtist from South Carolina, cut me some slack!"

The only one I saw that really was for gay rights was Dennis Kucinich.

The Senator

02-08-2008, 10:58 AM

i know. he's a very awkward speaker. if he ends up going up against obama i think that may hurt him quite a bit.

:up:

my father-in-law gave my wife a pamphlet the other day titled something like "choosing your candidate: what any serious catholic should do" and it outlines their 5 main issues, which are (not positive about this order)

1. abortion
2. embryonic stem cell research
3. euthanasia
4. human cloning
5. homosexual "marriage" (and they do use the quotes)

of course they use misinformation and lies about the stem cell research, no big surprise. i really can't wrap my head around gay marriage ranking that high on their list of priorities, though. yeah, maybe the bible mentions something about gays, blah, blah, blah, but is it really that important to deny them that privilege, and "protect the sanctity of marriage" when over history there's been plenty of arranged marriages and shotgun weddings, not to mention revolving-door marriages and quickie divorces. is marriage even sacred anymore? was it ever? what about jesus' teachings on equality? it's so mind-numbingly backwards to me. isn't healthcare and education a little more important than controlling people's personal lives and denying them the same privileges as everyone else?

you're dead on about the oppression and promotion of ignorance over values, by the way. it's like they're taking the same approach to politics as they take to religion; blind allegiance and submission to authoritarian control, which leads to lashing out against those who dare to think differently or accept a scientific approach to a lot of things rather than simply following along without questioning what you don't understand.

I hope no one takes offense to this, but this is why the Catholic Church annoys me more than any other denomination. Human cloning is a non-issue. Even if they had the ability to clone people, do you think that a majority of the people in Congress support that? If a bill to clone individuals for medical purposes came to the floor of the House of Representatives, I would imagine that 95% of the Reps would vote against it.

I find the euthanasia debate hysterically pointless, and for one good reason: There's evidence to suggest that THE POPE was euthanized! I think it's an astute act of hypocrisy to speak out against something that the figurehead of the church essentially endorsed.

I just find it amazing that forty percent of the issues the Catholic Church looks for in an ideal candidate are non-issues. No one runs on euthanasia or human cloning. Hell, I bet half of Congress hasn't even taken a position on it!

[calming down now]

The Senator

02-08-2008, 11:00 AM

How do the current democratic candidates stack up on alternative lifestyle issues?:huh:

None of them support an amendment to the constitution defining marriage between a man and a woman, and that's good enough for me.

They also support civil unions and repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell.

The Senator

02-08-2008, 11:03 AM

The only one I saw that really was for gay rights was Dennis Kucinich.

Yeah, except his holiness voted against the Employment Non-Discrimination Act because it didn't include transgendered people. So, instead of voting to help gays achieve rights they didn't have, and waiting to vote on a later bill which would have included transgendered persons, he voted against it and other similar bills out of principle. His voting record on gay rights actually corresponds to some Republican house members.

Thank God someone might beat him in his upcoming District primary.

sinewave

02-08-2008, 11:10 AM

I hope no one takes offense to this, but this is why the Catholic Church annoys me more than any other denomination. Human cloning is a non-issue. Even if they had the ability to clone people, do you think that a majority of the people in Congress support that? If a bill to clone individuals for medical purposes came to the floor of the House of Representatives, I would imagine that 95% of the Reps would vote against it.

I find the euthanasia debate hysterically pointless, and for one good reason: There's evidence to suggest that THE POPE was euthanized! I think it's an astute act of hypocrisy to speak out against something that the figurehead of the church essentially endorsed.

I just find it amazing that forty percent of the issues the Catholic Church looks for in an ideal candidate are non-issues. No one runs on euthanasia or human cloning. Hell, I bet half of Congress hasn't even taken a position on it!

[calming down now]

i know, man. and they make a point of saying that if the candidate you're voting for isn't 100% on-board with those issues, he's not worth the vote. basically it's an all-or-nothing situation. the candidate could be the most qualified, competent, brilliant one out there with perfect plans on any number of more important issues, but if he doesn't adhere to their standards on those particular issues, he's not worthy of their vote. it's assinine. they don't specifically tell you to vote strictly republican, probably to avoid lawsuits, but they make it pretty clear that there's no way a "serious catholic" should support the democratic part. i remember being at a family function like a couple of days after the '04 election and my father-in-law was discussing it with his good friend and they both agreed that they voted for bush because of the moral issues. i had to bite my tongue to stop myself from saying something that might disrupt the friendly atmosphere. apparently unnecessary wars, government sanctioned torture and illegally wiretapping american citizens are all within the morally acceptable range to most of these people, but two happy, healthy gay men marrying is way too damaging to their way of life. :whatever:

The Senator

02-08-2008, 11:44 AM

I have a feeling that Eliot Spitzer and Jim Webb will end up losing their seats.

If Bloomberg doesn't run for President, he'll surely run for governor of New York. And with Spitzer's falling popularity and set backs, he'll also surely win.

And Jim Webb shouldn't have beaten George Allen. He only won...barely...because Allen was an idiot and said macacca. It should have remained in Republican hands if it weren't for that one blunder and I think that seat will end up back in Republican hands. I think Gilmore will run for the Senate in 2012, since he will obviously lose in 2008 to Mark Warner and beat Webb.

Well, Webb is very popular in Virginia. And Virginia is becoming more and more Democratic-leaning, so he has a good chance of keeping his seat in 2012.

I think Spitzer will be re-elected. I'll compare his situation to the one in Illinois in 2006. Governor Rod Blagojevich was under investigation for corruption, and was very unpopular, yet he managed to win re-election because he didn't have a strong enough opponent. I don't think Bloomberg would run for Governor myself, especially if he dumps money into a Presidential bid and loses. If someone could shoo-- I mean, put Joe Bruno in a nice, comfy retirement hold with all the other cranky 82-year-old men, some of Spitzer's problems would magically disappear. Unfortunately, some of his policy concerns are a bit unpopular-- but those things manage to disappear over time.

Super_Ludacris

02-08-2008, 11:46 AM

Malice

02-08-2008, 11:47 AM

This post actually made me laugh out loud in my office

good stuff

Frankly its the truth...

Super_Ludacris

02-08-2008, 11:49 AM

Lmao!

Kelly

02-08-2008, 12:00 PM

I could go with McCain, Clinton or Obama.......I'm still undecided at the moment, and enjoying the ride.....

Honestly at this point, it is VP pics, and bar any MAJOR screw ups from these guys and gal.......I'll have a hell of a choice come November, rather than NO choice like the last 2 go arounds....

So I'm good........*big smile*

The Incredible Hulk

02-08-2008, 12:21 PM

I refuse to vote for a Republican in a national or statewide election, and it isn't out of blind association. Yes, Republicans may be pro-choice, or support Medicaid and Social Security, or any other so-called 'liberal' policy. But the Republican Party, to me, has evolved into a disfigured, rotten political force which thrives on oppression and the promotion of ignorance over values. As a homosexual apatheist, the Republican Party has rejected the idea that gays can live a normal family life style, that it is the homosexuals in this country destroying the virtues of the American family, that non-believers are the root of all evil in this country... that's what the root of this party has come out in favor of.

So, while there may be a candidate for Congress or Senate or whatever who supports most of my beliefs, I refuse to vote for him or her if they belong to the Republican Party. As Rep. Barney Frank said on "Real Time with Bill Maher," I would be doing a disservice to myself and everyone else in the gay community by supporting a candidate whose party would want to make my personal identity a crime. And I simply can't let that happen.

I think you're sort of agreeing with me but I'm not sure. Obviously you have justified reasons for ruling out any Republicans, but does that mean you automatically run to the Democratic candidate just because he's not a Republican even if he's say for instance not pro-gay marriage? I would hope not. my point is, if there's say a Libertarian or Green Party candidate out there who is pro-gay marriage and in line with your other values, you dont not vote for him simply because he isnt a Democrat.

This again goes to my point of abolishing politcal parties. If you liked a guy's stance on the majority of issues but he's a Republican, you rule him out. But if he's just up there as a man with his views on things and no party affiliation that he has to worry about catering too, then you probably do vote for that guy. THAT should be what politics is all about.

The Senator

02-08-2008, 12:23 PM

I think you're sort of agreeing with me but I'm not sure. Obviously you have justified reasons for ruling out any Republicans, but does that mean you automatically run to the Democratic candidate just because he's not a Republican even if he's say for instance not pro-gay marriage? I would hope not.

If it's a choice between a Democrat who opposes gay marriage, and a Republican who supports gay marriage... then I will abstain from voting.

The Incredible Hulk

02-08-2008, 12:25 PM

If it's a choice between a Democrat who opposes gay marriage, and a Republican who supports gay marriage... then I will abstain from voting.

But my point was if there was a 3rd candidate that wasnt a Dem or Rep who doesnt oppose it and had a reasonable stance on all the issues. Do you then vote for him? Or do you just say "screw it, he'll never win anyway" and just not vote?

The Senator

02-08-2008, 12:31 PM

But my point was if there was a 3rd candidate that wasnt a Dem or Rep who doesnt oppose it and had a reasonable stance on all the issues. Do you then vote for him? Or do you just say "screw it, he'll never win anyway" and just not vote?

I might vote for him or her, but more than likely, I'd abstain entirely.

Genesis 1.0

02-08-2008, 01:00 PM

If you believe it was a party that did it, then you are sadly misunderstanding Washington as it exists.

Washington has become an ineffectual entity. Rarely does anything really get passed that has any other then stopgaps and temporary solutions.

Granted there is a Republican in the presidency. A year ago, the Democrats came into power, and not a damn thing has been done there either.

It really is just a stalemate basically of ineffectual leadership across the board.

I'd have to agree. Democratic control of Congress hasn't resulted in anything they promised, those promises being what they were voted in for by the American public. They came in to save us all from the Bush Administration and the Republican Party, praise be.

Instead they've done little to nothing and have ratings below the guy they'd planned to show up. So what we have instead is a gridlock where both sides have become completely ineffectual, to steal your term. Democrat and Republican alike equally useless with a limited number of exceptions.

As to the Anti-Republican train, I've already been up and down this track too many times so I'll pass this time around.

Hulk: I've yet to see a 3rd party that was more in line with my objectives than a 3rd place choice like McCain.

My problem with it, as I said before, is that during such a pivotal election, voting a 3rd party that's 99% sure not to win the Presidency is in effect, sitting it out. That's what doesn't sit well with me.

sinewave

02-08-2008, 01:46 PM

sinewave

02-08-2008, 01:52 PM

Malice

02-08-2008, 02:18 PM

anyone else have a problem with romney's remarks about the dems being the "surrender to terrrorism" party? what ****head. just more reason to hate the republican party and their fearmongering ways. "vote for us or america will die!" :whatever:

No you are reading to much into the comment.

He is referring to Iraq...
Granted I think they make Iraq out to be so "terrorist"

Both Hillary and Obama want to basically just pull, out and that would just simply be catostrophic.

The Senator

02-08-2008, 02:19 PM

I'd have to agree. Democratic control of Congress hasn't resulted in anything they promised, those promises being what they were voted in for by the American public. They came in to save us all from the Bush Administration and the Republican Party, praise be.

Instead they've done little to nothing and have ratings below the guy they'd planned to show up. So what we have instead is a gridlock where both sides have become completely ineffectual, to steal your term. Democrat and Republican alike equally useless with a limited number of exceptions.

As to the Anti-Republican train, I've already been up and down this track too many times so I'll pass this time around.

Hulk: I've yet to see a 3rd party that was more in line with my objectives than a 3rd place choice like McCain.

My problem with it, as I said before, is that during such a pivotal election, voting a 3rd party that's 99% sure not to win the Presidency is in effect, sitting it out. That's what doesn't sit well with me.

You know why the Democrats can't get anything done? Because the Republican Party has filibustered every single bill the Democrats put up for a vote in the Senate. As a result, the Democrats need to get over 60 votes in order for debate to even take place on a bill. The latest bill which outlined a strategy for withdrawing from Iraq received 57 votes-- three short of the votes needed to thwart the filibuster.

I remember when the Republican Party used to whine and cry about the Dems filibustering the GOP's judicial nominees, the gay marriage amendment, and so on and so forth. "WHAAAAAA! WHAAAAA! They're filibustering our bill!!! They're ruining America's values! WHAAAA! WHAAAA!!!" Now, they're doing the exact same thing they spoke out against with the Democrats.

These measures, by comparison, always pass in the House of Representatives. I don't think any of these bills were defeated in the House. Unfortunately, the Republican Party and President Bush have caused this period of legislative gridlock-- the GOP because they have filibustered several important bills, and Bush because he's vetoed several important bills-- not the Democratic Party.

Also, Congress's rating has always been low. Historically, people hate Congress, but they love their Congressmen. So it's not like many of these guys will be leaving in the near future.

Malice

02-08-2008, 02:30 PM

SuBe

02-08-2008, 02:32 PM

Malice

02-08-2008, 02:41 PM

Can I be cloned and join too?

I dont know...see if all my clones were in power...we would get ALOT done...you might just create a problem very similar to what we got now.

;)

sinewave

02-08-2008, 02:50 PM

No you are reading to much into the comment.

He is referring to Iraq...
Granted I think they make Iraq out to be so "terrorist"

Both Hillary and Obama want to basically just pull, out and that would just simply be catostrophic.

i don't think i'm reading too much into it at all. he knew exactly what he was doing when he said that to a room full of hardline conservatives. it's all about demonizing the competition and going to extremes. we've heard the same things from others in that party since the war began.

You know why the Democrats can't get anything done? Because the Republican Party has filibustered every single bill the Democrats put up for a vote in the Senate. As a result, the Democrats need to get over 60 votes in order for debate to even take place on a bill. The latest bill which outlined a strategy for withdrawing from Iraq received 57 votes-- three short of the votes needed to thwart the filibuster.

I remember when the Republican Party used to whine and cry about the Dems filibustering the GOP's judicial nominees, the gay marriage amendment, and so on and so forth. "WHAAAAAA! WHAAAAA! They're filibustering our bill!!! They're ruining America's values! WHAAAA! WHAAAA!!!" Now, they're doing the exact same thing they spoke out against with the Democrats.

These measures, by comparison, always pass in the House of Representatives. I don't think any of these bills were defeated in the House. Unfortunately, the Republican Party and President Bush have caused this period of legislative gridlock-- the GOP because they have filibustered several important bills, and Bush because he's vetoed several important bills-- not the Democratic Party.

Also, Congress's rating has always been low. Historically, people hate Congress, but they love their Congressmen. So it's not like many of these guys will be leaving in the near future.

yep, it's politics as usual.

SuBe

02-08-2008, 02:50 PM

I dont know...see if all my clones were in power...we would get ALOT done...you might just create a problem very similar to what we got now.

;)
As long as my one clone has enough clout to pass the Fairtax, I'm good to go!

Malice

02-08-2008, 02:54 PM

i don't think i'm reading too much into it at all. he knew exactly what he was doing when he said that to a room full of hardline conservatives. it's all about demonizing the competition and going to extremes. we've heard the same things from others in that party since the war began.

yep, it's politics as usual.

Demonizing opponents has been usualy politics for as far as I can remember.

Mr Sparkle

02-08-2008, 03:03 PM

This is my opinion.
I dont like anyone running now...
Since Mitt bailed...I dont know where to go...

Hillary is not an option....
Obama I like, just dont like the policies
McCain kinda scares me....

I feel sick now.

ugh...Mitt Romney.
that guy was scary, scary.....ugh.
thank goodness for small mercies.

sinewave

02-08-2008, 03:08 PM

Demonizing opponents has been usualy politics for as far as I can remember.

yep, and it old at this point. i think a lot of people are sick of it, which is why obama and mccain are doing as well as they are. people are sick of extremists lashing out at everyone else. but look at how the republican party is treating mccain. "he's not conservative enough!", we keep hearing. why do they fear moderates? why does everything have to be pushed farther to the right? why is conservatism so acceptable but "liberal" is a dirty word?

The Master Planner

02-08-2008, 03:30 PM

why do they fear moderates? why does everything have to be pushed farther to the right? why is conservatism so acceptable but "liberal" is a dirty word?

Well, to liberals, "conservatism" is a synonym of "nazism", so it's even.
As for me, if the race turns out to be McCain vs. Hillary, it's not going to make much of a difference who one votes for...

sinewave

02-08-2008, 03:33 PM

Well, to liberals, "conservatism" is a synonym of "nazism", so it's even.
As for me, if the race turns out to be McCain vs. Hillary, it's not going to make much of a difference who one votes for...

nah, i think that applies more to "neo-cons". there's no equivalent to that on the left, that i know of. "neo-libs"?

J. J. Jameson

02-08-2008, 03:52 PM

The Master Planner

02-08-2008, 03:57 PM

The comments about the liberality of current Democrats made me think about an issue.

The death penalty. It surprises me that there isn't much talk about it. Anyone who puts even little bit of research into it can see that the system is severely flawed. Even on innocent life lost is to many. It's one of the things I'd like to see brought to an end in America.

This is another place I would differ from my fellow conservatives. Many would be in favor of the death penalty, and many would say they could back it up with Scripture or something along those lines. But can any human determine what is worth a life? How can men decide what makes a life forfeit? Most of all, doesn't the death penalty say that there is a point where a person can be beyond forgiveness?

*Gets down off of soap box* I just thought it would (sometime) become a bigger issue, especially among the Democratic party.

The main argument for the death penalty supporter is this: Human life is so precious that if you terminate one and are found guilty in a court of law, you lose the right to keep your own life. Even in prison, one can fall in love, make money (in certain cases), read, learn, and do the countless things that the murdered person can never experience again. A life for a life. Justice in its purest sense.
You could argue in turn that an innocent person could be executed. America's judicial safeguards make this unlikely. DNA tests and current CSI technology make it even more so.

The Master Planner

02-08-2008, 03:59 PM

nah, i think that applies more to "neo-cons". there's no equivalent to that on the left, that i know of. "neo-libs"?

I guess a "neo-lib," or a counterpart to the neo-con, would be the sort you may easily find at a college campus, crunching his vegan granola and saying that a pig is a dog is a person and arguing the benefits of euthanasia for elderly people and disabled newborns, and thinks that communism wouldn't be so bad if they'd just get the kinks out of the system.

sinewave

02-08-2008, 04:07 PM

I guess a "neo-lib," or a counterpart to the neo-con, would be the sort you may easily find at a college campus, crunching his vegan granola and saying that a pig is a dog is a person and arguing the benefits of euthanasia for elderly people and disabled newborns, and thinks that communism wouldn't be so bad if they'd just get the kinks out of the system.

so basically a hippie-commie, right?

YsoSerious

02-08-2008, 04:58 PM

Anyone but Hillary.

hippie_hunter

02-08-2008, 06:19 PM

Well, Webb is very popular in Virginia. And Virginia is becoming more and more Democratic-leaning, so he has a good chance of keeping his seat in 2012.
I don't think that Virginia is becoming Democratic leaning but it is certainly no longer a Republican stronghold and I feel that it's a reliable swing state like Ohio, Iowa, and New Hampshire. That's the way I feel that states should be, not strongholds for certain parties like Texas, New York, and California.

And Gilmore was a very popular governor also. The only problem with his Senate campaign is that he's going up against someone who is even more popular. I think if Gilmore runs again in 2012, he'll win.

I think Spitzer will be re-elected. I'll compare his situation to the one in Illinois in 2006. Governor Rod Blagojevich was under investigation for corruption, and was very unpopular, yet he managed to win re-election because he didn't have a strong enough opponent. I don't think Bloomberg would run for Governor myself, especially if he dumps money into a Presidential bid and loses. If someone could shoo-- I mean, put Joe Bruno in a nice, comfy retirement hold with all the other cranky 82-year-old men, some of Spitzer's problems would magically disappear. Unfortunately, some of his policy concerns are a bit unpopular-- but those things manage to disappear over time.
In my opinion, Bloomberg will run for governor if he doesn't run for President. If he runs for President, he won't run for governor.

I think the only way Spitzer will end up getting re-elected is if Bloomberg doesn't run. He certainly won't win by the large margin he won last time though. But if Bloomberg does run, Spitzer's done for.

Arkady Rossovich

02-08-2008, 07:59 PM

If you believe it was a party that did it, then you are sadly misunderstanding Washington as it exists.

Washington has become an ineffectual entity. Rarely does anything really get passed that has any other then stopgaps and temporary solutions.

Granted there is a Republican in the presidency. A year ago, the Democrats came into power, and not a damn thing has been done there either.

It really is just a stalemate basically of ineffectual leadership across the board.

I think the Democrats have tied Bush's hands so he can't do anymore damange than what he has already done. I heard this once,and it makes perfect sence. True change,is when America has a Democratic president.

I have no love for most of the Republican party at this point, but I have just as little for the Democrats.

Honestly,your right. The Democrats could have ended Iraq..but kept their wallets open to give money..why? For votes..if the money ended,the Republicans could use that and bash the Democrats for it.

Never liked Romney anyway. Good riddance.

Indeed.

Ignorant Americans are ruining America...people who still wont or cant look past race and gender, people who choose to revel in their own ignorance and crap on anyone who attempts to change things

That's the Republicans for not wanting abortion legalized. It's their personal views ahead of what is right.

Don't pay attention to the ignorant troll. Look at his stupid user title.

I am not ignorant,if my title really was trolling..it would have been taken away. But it's there because people understand what i mean.

:lmao:

Keep laughing while your country is in a recession,and you have to pay more and more for basic things.:grin:

hippie_hunter

02-08-2008, 10:38 PM

I think the Democrats have tied Bush's hands so he can't do anymore damange than what he has already done. I heard this once,and it makes perfect sence. True change,is when America has a Democratic president.

Honestly,your right. The Democrats could have ended Iraq..but kept their wallets open to give money..why? For votes..if the money ended,the Republicans could use that and bash the Democrats for it.

Indeed.

That's the Republicans for not wanting abortion legalized. It's their personal views ahead of what is right.

I am not ignorant,if my title really was trolling..it would have been taken away. But it's there because people understand what i mean.

Keep laughing while your country is in a recession,and you have to pay more and more for basic things.:grin:

I laugh at your pathetic ignorance at your knowledge of this country.

The Senator

02-08-2008, 11:10 PM

There are two points I want to address, and I advise Arkady Rossovich to read this closely:

That's the Republicans for not wanting abortion legalized. It's their personal views ahead of what is right.

You know what? Republicans don't only oppose abortion. There are pro-life Democrats. Bob Casey, Jr. is a Democratic Senator from Pennsylvania, and he is staunchly pro-life. Three of my friends are devout Catholics. They're Democrats, and they are pro-life. In fact, I would say there are thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of Democrats who are pro-life. And you know what? I respect their opinions. I understand what they and the Republicans think about this issue, and I know where they are coming from.

Abortion is a very tricky issue. I don't promote the idea that women should get abortions. In fact, I don't think anyone thinks women should pursue abortion as a first resort when confronted with an unwanted pregnancy. But the reason why I think women should be able to get an abortion is very simple: It's their choice to make. It isn't mine. It isn't the father of the child. It's a choice a woman and only a woman can make. Most women make a rational choice about this, too. It's usually an emotional struggle, and a very difficult decision to make. If a woman decides an abortion is her best option, then I don't think anyone should stand in her way. And if someone is opposed to abortion-- Republican, Democrat, independent or politically apathetic-- then more power to them for sticking to their morals.

Abortion isn't a blue or red issue confined to one party, and to say that Republicans are evil because they don't support abortions is an ignorant statement-- especially from someone who knows so very little about the US political system.

I am not ignorant,if my title really was trolling..it would have been taken away. But it's there because people understand what i mean.

Republicans are not evil. The philosophy of the Republican Party is not evil. Are there misguided tensions within the party? Sure. I'd say the same thing about a few issues the Democrats support, too. But to say that the Republican Party is Satan, and that the Democrats are Jesus, is like comparing the Sun with the Moon.

The core differences between Democrats and Republicans lie within their ideologies, not the people of the party. I have friends who are hardcore conservatives. Friends who I wouldn't vote for if they ran for office, and friends who wouldn't vote for me if I did the same. But we get along, go to parties together, watch movies, talk politics... our lives go on. We coexist. To dip into the analogy reservoir once again, it's a lot like what goes on in this forum. You have DC fans and Marvel fans, and both fans support their hero of choice adamantly. But most of us can get along just fine, whether we like Batman or Spider-Man. It's the extremists, the ones who post in Heath Ledger's memorial thread saying "He should have died because teh Joker is teh suck" or the ones who post in the Spider-Man thread who say "Spider-Man is teh gay" who ruin everything. And that's what people like you do. You confine people to their political party and generate an opinion about them because of their party affiliation. You don't judge them as a person, and that really, really sucks.

If you want an excellent example of how people aren't driven solely on partisanship in our government... look at Barack Obama. He is the most liberal member of the Senate. Do you know who one of his best friends is? It's Tom Coburn from Oklahoma, arguably one of the most conservative members in the Senate. They became friends after Mrs. Coburn and Mrs. Obama had dinner together, and decided to invite their husbands along for their next get together. Since then, they've been incredibly close. They differ on policy issues, but they respect and admire each other as people. Just as I would expect SupermanBeyond or Malice to respect some of the more liberal posters here. While debate on certain issues may be heated sometimes, at the end of the day, we all get along, and none of us attack each other because of their party affiliation or ideological principles-- though we may debate it thoroughly and caustically.

LuiECuomo

02-09-2008, 12:00 AM

Excellent post, Jman.

SuBe

02-09-2008, 08:11 AM

That is a Great Post Jman. I don't agree with you politically, but that really hit it on the head. Except, Politics is far, far more serious than whether Marvel sucks or DC sucks. The debates we have here on the Hype, and the debates they have in Washington, and the Debate the talking heads have: They affect every one of us, through lose of Liberty, or Taxes. I don't want my children to wake up to the oppression that could happen if we the American People don't wake up and take back our Government.

comicgirl

02-09-2008, 09:49 AM

Sad that Romney dropped out. He honestly did still have a chance.
sorry, I'm not voting for anyone else who doesn't believe in evolution

terry78

02-09-2008, 09:52 AM

sorry, I'm not voting for anyone else who doesn't believe in evolution

You ain't voted for a while then, have ya?

Genesis 1.0

02-09-2008, 10:04 AM

You know why the Democrats can't get anything done? Because the Republican Party has filibustered every single bill the Democrats put up for a vote in the Senate. As a result, the Democrats need to get over 60 votes in order for debate to even take place on a bill. The latest bill which outlined a strategy for withdrawing from Iraq received 57 votes-- three short of the votes needed to thwart the filibuster.

I remember when the Republican Party used to whine and cry about the Dems filibustering the GOP's judicial nominees, the gay marriage amendment, and so on and so forth. "WHAAAAAA! WHAAAAA! They're filibustering our bill!!! They're ruining America's values! WHAAAA! WHAAAA!!!" Now, they're doing the exact same thing they spoke out against with the Democrats.

These measures, by comparison, always pass in the House of Representatives. I don't think any of these bills were defeated in the House. Unfortunately, the Republican Party and President Bush have caused this period of legislative gridlock-- the GOP because they have filibustered several important bills, and Bush because he's vetoed several important bills-- not the Democratic Party.

Also, Congress's rating has always been low. Historically, people hate Congress, but they love their Congressmen. So it's not like many of these guys will be leaving in the near future.

Before I dig in on this one, we disagree on nearly everything, but your last post was admirable.

Now, as to this about the filibuster, the Democrats have done the exact same thing, hell, each Party simply trades roles every election year. So to say this is somehow all the Republican's fault is misleading at best.

The Democrats rode the wave of 'change' and were voted in by the people to deliver just that. They came in roaring and promising to come through on the trust that the American public had bestowed on them. They failed. Period. All that self-righteous bluster came down to a squeak, THAT'S why they're hitting record lows in ratings, Congressional ratings are usually lower than Presidential ratings, but not THIS low. They failed the people that put them there and now they're suffering the consequences, so the blame is on their shoulders as well.

The bills get busted and vetoed because neither side wants to budge for fear of losing ground. These bills failed because of a lack of compromise, plain and simple, and a lack of compromise means these bills failed because of a Democratic Congress, the Senate, AND the President, not simply the latter as you tried to highlight.

When both sides find common ground and a need to save face, they'll work together to get things passed in record time, as we can see with the newly approved stimulus package. This session could have been that successful if there were more compromises on both sides of the aisle. So it's hardly fair to blame this Congress' ineffectual nature on the President and the Republican Party.

Genesis 1.0

02-09-2008, 10:07 AM

nah, i think that applies more to "neo-cons". there's no equivalent to that on the left, that i know of. "neo-libs"?

You can't possibly be trying to say that there is no extreme left wing. Come now, simply because they don't have a pretty title i.e. 'neo-con' does not by any means equate to them not existing. Secular progressives, ultra liberals, ect. you can find them just as heavily on the other end of the spectrum.

Moveon.org is a good place to start your easter egg hunt.

Kelly

02-09-2008, 10:45 AM

There are two points I want to address, and I advise Arkady Rossovich to read this closely:

You know what? Republicans don't only oppose abortion. There are pro-life Democrats. Bob Casey, Jr. is a Democratic Senator from Pennsylvania, and he is staunchly pro-life. Three of my friends are devout Catholics. They're Democrats, and they are pro-life. In fact, I would say there are thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of Democrats who are pro-life. And you know what? I respect their opinions. I understand what they and the Republicans think about this issue, and I know where they are coming from.

Abortion is a very tricky issue. I don't promote the idea that women should get abortions. In fact, I don't think anyone thinks women should pursue abortion as a first resort when confronted with an unwanted pregnancy. But the reason why I think women should be able to get an abortion is very simple: It's their choice to make. It isn't mine. It isn't the father of the child. It's a choice a woman and only a woman can make. Most women make a rational choice about this, too. It's usually an emotional struggle, and a very difficult decision to make. If a woman decides an abortion is her best option, then I don't think anyone should stand in her way. And if someone is opposed to abortion-- Republican, Democrat, independent or politically apathetic-- then more power to them for sticking to their morals.

Abortion isn't a blue or red issue confined to one party, and to say that Republicans are evil because they don't support abortions is an ignorant statement-- especially from someone who knows so very little about the US political system.

Republicans are not evil. The philosophy of the Republican Party is not evil. Are there misguided tensions within the party? Sure. I'd say the same thing about a few issues the Democrats support, too. But to say that the Republican Party is Satan, and that the Democrats are Jesus, is like comparing the Sun with the Moon.

The core differences between Democrats and Republicans lie within their ideologies, not the people of the party. I have friends who are hardcore conservatives. Friends who I wouldn't vote for if they ran for office, and friends who wouldn't vote for me if I did the same. But we get along, go to parties together, watch movies, talk politics... our lives go on. We coexist. To dip into the analogy reservoir once again, it's a lot like what goes on in this forum. You have DC fans and Marvel fans, and both fans support their hero of choice adamantly. But most of us can get along just fine, whether we like Batman or Spider-Man. It's the extremists, the ones who post in Heath Ledger's memorial thread saying "He should have died because teh Joker is teh suck" or the ones who post in the Spider-Man thread who say "Spider-Man is teh gay" who ruin everything. And that's what people like you do. You confine people to their political party and generate an opinion about them because of their party affiliation. You don't judge them as a person, and that really, really sucks.

If you want an excellent example of how people aren't driven solely on partisanship in our government... look at Barack Obama. He is the most liberal member of the Senate. Do you know who one of his best friends is? It's Tom Coburn from Oklahoma, arguably one of the most conservative members in the Senate. They became friends after Mrs. Coburn and Mrs. Obama had dinner together, and decided to invite their husbands along for their next get together. Since then, they've been incredibly close. They differ on policy issues, but they respect and admire each other as people. Just as I would expect SupermanBeyond or Malice to respect some of the more liberal posters here. While debate on certain issues may be heated sometimes, at the end of the day, we all get along, and none of us attack each other because of their party affiliation or ideological principles-- though we may debate it thoroughly and caustically.

One of the best posts on this forum Jman.....good job.:up: :up:

BlackLantern

02-09-2008, 01:17 PM

One of the best posts on this forum Jman.....good job.:up: :up:

Here, here.....Most Americans seem to forget that you can differ on politics and various issues without demonizing the person who doesnt agree with you

Captain Planet!

02-09-2008, 01:44 PM

BlackLantern

02-09-2008, 01:47 PM

You dont vote....you dont get to complain....so vote for who you feel best suits your ideals

Mr Sparkle

02-09-2008, 01:51 PM

I don't want my children to wake up to the oppression that could happen if we the American People don't wake up and take back our Government.

you're already oppressed.

Denny67

02-09-2008, 02:13 PM

There are two points I want to address, and I advise Arkady Rossovich to read this closely:

You know what? Republicans don't only oppose abortion. There are pro-life Democrats. Bob Casey, Jr. is a Democratic Senator from Pennsylvania, and he is staunchly pro-life. Three of my friends are devout Catholics. They're Democrats, and they are pro-life. In fact, I would say there are thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of Democrats who are pro-life. And you know what? I respect their opinions. I understand what they and the Republicans think about this issue, and I know where they are coming from.

Abortion is a very tricky issue. I don't promote the idea that women should get abortions. In fact, I don't think anyone thinks women should pursue abortion as a first resort when confronted with an unwanted pregnancy. But the reason why I think women should be able to get an abortion is very simple: It's their choice to make. It isn't mine. It isn't the father of the child. It's a choice a woman and only a woman can make. Most women make a rational choice about this, too. It's usually an emotional struggle, and a very difficult decision to make. If a woman decides an abortion is her best option, then I don't think anyone should stand in her way. And if someone is opposed to abortion-- Republican, Democrat, independent or politically apathetic-- then more power to them for sticking to their morals.

Abortion isn't a blue or red issue confined to one party, and to say that Republicans are evil because they don't support abortions is an ignorant statement-- especially from someone who knows so very little about the US political system.

Republicans are not evil. The philosophy of the Republican Party is not evil. Are there misguided tensions within the party? Sure. I'd say the same thing about a few issues the Democrats support, too. But to say that the Republican Party is Satan, and that the Democrats are Jesus, is like comparing the Sun with the Moon.

The core differences between Democrats and Republicans lie within their ideologies, not the people of the party. I have friends who are hardcore conservatives. Friends who I wouldn't vote for if they ran for office, and friends who wouldn't vote for me if I did the same. But we get along, go to parties together, watch movies, talk politics... our lives go on. We coexist. To dip into the analogy reservoir once again, it's a lot like what goes on in this forum. You have DC fans and Marvel fans, and both fans support their hero of choice adamantly. But most of us can get along just fine, whether we like Batman or Spider-Man. It's the extremists, the ones who post in Heath Ledger's memorial thread saying "He should have died because teh Joker is teh suck" or the ones who post in the Spider-Man thread who say "Spider-Man is teh gay" who ruin everything. And that's what people like you do. You confine people to their political party and generate an opinion about them because of their party affiliation. You don't judge them as a person, and that really, really sucks.

If you want an excellent example of how people aren't driven solely on partisanship in our government... look at Barack Obama. He is the most liberal member of the Senate. Do you know who one of his best friends is? It's Tom Coburn from Oklahoma, arguably one of the most conservative members in the Senate. They became friends after Mrs. Coburn and Mrs. Obama had dinner together, and decided to invite their husbands along for their next get together. Since then, they've been incredibly close. They differ on policy issues, but they respect and admire each other as people. Just as I would expect SupermanBeyond or Malice to respect some of the more liberal posters here. While debate on certain issues may be heated sometimes, at the end of the day, we all get along, and none of us attack each other because of their party affiliation or ideological principles-- though we may debate it thoroughly and caustically.

Great post man... really. :yay:

There is a novel by Orson Scott Card - Empire. It is a political thriller with a hint of Sci-Fi but the whole thing sets up a great epilogue from Orson Scott Card which speaks to the same sentiment as you have. If you have not read it, you may want to pick it up, even if you just read the epilogue. I think you, along with many here will really enjoy it.

Anyhow, well done.

The Master Planner

02-09-2008, 03:22 PM

so basically a hippie-commie, right?

Precisely. :yay:

hippie_hunter

02-09-2008, 03:43 PM

BlackLantern

02-09-2008, 04:51 PM

you're already oppressed.

but are you really?? Ill use my life for an example.....I am 28 years old, full time job, I have a decent apartment, I vote and I have a porn store like 5 minutes away. are any of us living in the US really oppressed?? do you wake up everyday in fear that you arent going to make it home that night?? That saying something bad about the government will get you disappeared/???

Addendum

02-09-2008, 05:33 PM

...Secular progressives...

You mean that term that O'reilly invented for his "culture warrior" book? The one that didn't become a worldwide buzzword?

sinewave

02-09-2008, 05:53 PM

You can't possibly be trying to say that there is no extreme left wing. Come now, simply because they don't have a pretty title i.e. 'neo-con' does not by any means equate to them not existing. Secular progressives, ultra liberals, ect. you can find them just as heavily on the other end of the spectrum.

Moveon.org is a good place to start your easter egg hunt.

not at all. i'm saying that the term "liberal" seems to be a catchall for anything that's not conservative. the right-wing throws the term around whenever they need to subtly (and sometimes not so) disparage the democrats. there are degrees to a person's political ideology on both sides of the spectrum, but when you lump everyone left of center into one big group with the same label, it's a very convenient way of taking digs at the entire group, even though the extremists are a minority within that group and the majority happen to be made up of average, everyday people who are nothing like the baby-killing, vegan, communist hedonists the far-right would have you believe they are. that's what i'm talking about. do you get it now?

BlackLantern

02-09-2008, 05:55 PM

Id agree....both of the terms Liberal and secular seem to engender negative connotations

SuperFerret

02-09-2008, 06:08 PM

If you don't like the candidates, why even vote?

BlackLantern

02-09-2008, 06:10 PM

If you don't like the candidates, why even vote?

Because voting is a right we all have and should exercise....

SuperFerret

02-09-2008, 06:14 PM

Even if it just propagates the same screwed up system over and over?

BlackLantern

02-09-2008, 06:17 PM

Even if it just propagates the same screwed up system over and over?

well the system isnt changing anytime soon.....so the choices are limited

SuBe

02-09-2008, 06:18 PM

Because voting is a right we all have and should exercise....
I'm getting tired of saying this, but Voting is not a right. Look it up. It is a DUTY, your only Duty to our system.

BlackLantern

02-09-2008, 06:20 PM

I'm getting tired of saying this, but Voting is not a right. Look it up. It is a DUTY, your only Duty to our system.

my apologies then.....at 28 I have voted consistently since turning 18....If you dont vote, you dont get to complain

SuperFerret

02-09-2008, 06:21 PM

well the system isnt changing anytime soon.....so the choices are limited

And one of those choices is not voting. People shouldn't be bullied into voting. Makes you wonder how many of our past leaders would've gotten elected if the voters weren't forced to choose between Undesirable Choice A and Undesirable Choice B.

Speaking of bullying...

I'm getting tired of saying this, but Voting is not a right. Look it up. It is a DUTY, your only Duty to our system.

My only duty is to uphold what I believe and there is no system that will take priority over what I feel to be truly important.

SuBe

02-09-2008, 06:26 PM

my apologies then.....at 28 I have voted consistently since turning 18....If you dont vote, you dont get to complain
Agreed.

BlackLantern

02-09-2008, 06:26 PM

My only duty is to uphold what I believe and there is no system that will take priority over what I feel to be truly important.

So you don't believe in the system, yet you are a beneficiary of it.....seems kinda hypocritical of you. You are free to come on the Hype and b**ch about it.....

SuperFerret

02-09-2008, 06:29 PM

So you don't believe in the system, yet you are a beneficiary of it.....seems kinda hypocritical of you. You are free to come on the Hype and b**ch about it.....

How do I benefit from the current voting system? How is it being hypocritical to state what I feel to be true and debate it intelligently (as opposed to b**ching about something)?

BlackLantern

02-09-2008, 06:31 PM

How do I benefit from the current voting system? How is it being hypocritical to state what I feel to be true and debate it intelligently (as opposed to b**ching about something)?

The system ensures freedom of speech....or does the system only suck because no one you like is running??

SuperFerret

02-09-2008, 06:40 PM

The system ensures freedom of speech....or does the system only suck because no one you like is running??

First off, the Bill of Rights and the Constitution ensure my freedom of speech. Secondly, if anything, this attitude of "the system ensures your freedom of speech.. so don't go using it to badmouth said system" reeks of hypocrisy and actually serves to limit the freedoms of those who'll buy into it.

Thirdly, this year will be the first year I'll be looking into an election with intent to vote. I'm waiting for the primaries to be over before I start mulling over my options. If, and that's an IF, I find that no candidate supports policies that I agree with, then I will not be voting. However, if I do find a candidate that's "for me", I'll throw my vote his/her way.

Finally, even if I do happen to support this system this year, there is no denying that it is broken and needs some actual change to do what it's supposed to; i.e. serve the people of this country.

BlackLantern

02-09-2008, 06:49 PM

First off, the Bill of Rights and the Constitution ensure my freedom of speech. Secondly, if anything, this attitude of "the system ensures your freedom of speech.. so don't go using it to badmouth said system" reeks of hypocrisy and actually serves to limit the freedoms of those who'll buy into it.

Thirdly, this year will be the first year I'll be looking into an election with intent to vote. I'm waiting for the primaries to be over before I start mulling over my options. If, and that's an IF, I find that no candidate supports policies that I agree with, then I will not be voting. However, if I do find a candidate that's "for me", I'll throw my vote his/her way.

Finally, even if I do happen to support this system this year, there is no denying that it is broken and needs some actual change to do what it's supposed to; i.e. serve the people of this country.

Ive always found that its near impossible to find a candidate that lines up with your views 100 percent....as for "limiting freedoms" I really dont see how mine are limited if at all

SuperFerret

02-09-2008, 06:56 PM

Ive always found that its near impossible to find a candidate that lines up with your views 100 percent....as for "limiting freedoms" I really dont see how mine are limited if at all

I never said 100%, but if (as in the thread title) you're getting "depressed" about your options, I don't see a point in voting at all. All you'll be doing is making a decision that you won't be happy with.

As for "limiting freedoms", I'm sure that there are some who feel very pressured to vote, even if they don't necessarily feel that the candidates are good, just because of this notion that it's a "duty" and "if you don't vote, you can't complain".

It should be, if you don't make an effort to change, then you can't complain.

Kelly

02-09-2008, 07:12 PM

SuperFerret

02-09-2008, 07:18 PM

I disagree with that, as picking the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil. But, I'm not going to argue that. All I'm saying is that this "Vote or die" attitude is stupid, and that people can choose not to vote (and shouldn't be badgered for doing so).

The Professor

02-09-2008, 07:19 PM

I think there is a difference between being depressed that your primary choice is out........and just not voting. If it looks like there is chance that an opposing candidate that you absolutely do not want in office, then you better sure as hell vote....against that candidate.

Truth.

And I certainly think that's whats happened to Hilary right now, and will probably happen even more if she becomes the nominee.

Arkady Rossovich

02-09-2008, 08:40 PM

You know what? Republicans don't only oppose abortion.

Abortion isn't a blue or red issue confined to one party, and to say that Republicans are evil because they don't support abortions is an ignorant statement-- especially from someone who knows so very little about the US political system.

Honestly, i think i know more than you. I read your whole post,i would have quoted it all..but it would take up too much space. You take much for granted,as what i said before..they are..because look at the state of your country.

you're already oppressed.

They are,they just don't know it yet.

If you don't like the candidates, why even vote?

It's a right American soliders have died for. The freedom to vote for who you want in office. It's what Malice said in the first post,it's sad that often you can't vote for the person you want directly..always someone who is similar to what you want..but not exactly.

BlackLantern

02-09-2008, 08:42 PM

the "state of our country"???.....I'm doing ok, I have a job and am able to make a living....

The Senator

02-09-2008, 10:23 PM

Honestly, i think i know more than you. I read your whole post,i would have quoted it all..but it would take up too much space. You take much for granted,as what i said before..they are..because look at the state of your country.

I work for this government. I study this government. I've been an American citizen all my life. I hate several aspects of this government. I absolutely love most of how this country works. This country is in good shape on the whole. Politically, it sucks. But you know what? We're still a hegemony. We'll be a hegemony for the next century. We'll remain the number one superpower in this world. And I'm happy to be a part of it.

Sorry you couldn't respond with depth, or even digest anything of merit I said. But I refuse to take you seriously.

You don't know anything about America. Americans don't make baseless generalizations like you do. Feel free to express your opinion... but to say that you know more about the Americans on this forum is just... laughable to say the least.

comicgirl

02-09-2008, 11:25 PM

You ain't voted for a while then, have ya?recently the folks I voted for have lost (THanks Kerry!!)

S_H_F_4839

02-10-2008, 05:12 AM

the only republican I would vote for is Huckabee, I live in arkansas and I think he did a good job as govenor here.

teseract

02-10-2008, 09:52 AM

the "state of our country"???.....I'm doing ok, I have a job and am able to make a living....

You're not a country, are you?

teseract

02-10-2008, 09:55 AM

Interesting...
Of course Dems did the same thing in the Republican dominated do-nothing previous congress...

The symptoms are the same regardless of the party...they all should be fired...and bring in clones of me. :)
With one exception, the Dems had a good reason to filibuster. It's not good if the Supreme Court becomes a conclave of religious "yes men" and it's equally not good to amend the constitution because some people consider a non-criminal practice icky.

teseract

02-10-2008, 10:42 AM

Republicans are not evil. The philosophy of the Republican Party is not evil. Are there misguided tensions within the party? Sure. I'd say the same thing about a few issues the Democrats support, too. But to say that the Republican Party is Satan, and that the Democrats are Jesus, is like comparing the Sun with the Moon.

The core differences between Democrats and Republicans lie within their ideologies, not the people of the party. I have friends who are hardcore conservatives. Friends who I wouldn't vote for if they ran for office, and friends who wouldn't vote for me if I did the same. But we get along, go to parties together, watch movies, talk politics... our lives go on. We coexist. To dip into the analogy reservoir once again, it's a lot like what goes on in this forum. You have DC fans and Marvel fans, and both fans support their hero of choice adamantly. But most of us can get along just fine, whether we like Batman or Spider-Man. It's the extremists, the ones who post in Heath Ledger's memorial thread saying "He should have died because teh Joker is teh suck" or the ones who post in the Spider-Man thread who say "Spider-Man is teh gay" who ruin everything. And that's what people like you do. You confine people to their political party and generate an opinion about them because of their party affiliation. You don't judge them as a person, and that really, really sucks.

If you want an excellent example of how people aren't driven solely on partisanship in our government... look at Barack Obama. He is the most liberal member of the Senate. Do you know who one of his best friends is? It's Tom Coburn from Oklahoma, arguably one of the most conservative members in the Senate. They became friends after Mrs. Coburn and Mrs. Obama had dinner together, and decided to invite their husbands along for their next get together. Since then, they've been incredibly close. They differ on policy issues, but they respect and admire each other as people. Just as I would expect SupermanBeyond or Malice to respect some of the more liberal posters here. While debate on certain issues may be heated sometimes, at the end of the day, we all get along, and none of us attack each other because of their party affiliation or ideological principles-- though we may debate it thoroughly and caustically.

Very interesting, allow me to play devil's advocate for a second.

When does the political become the personal?

I don't think it's as easy as you make it out to be. Lets take your position. If I were a gay man and would have a friend, with whom I disagree politically because he's, lets say, a Republican and said friend, if he himself has nothing against gays, heck, maybe is even pro gay, would vote the party, allthough he knows that the party line if vehemently anti-gay, I would really consider severing ties. I mean it would come off to me as the ultimate form of betrayal, if someone I call a friend votes people into power who's mission seems to be, to make my live as miserable as possible. I don't think personal issues and political issues can be separated that easily.

LegendaryCaleb

02-10-2008, 11:12 AM

the only republican I would vote for is Huckabee, I live in arkansas and I think he did a good job as govenor here.
Its impossible....but I wish Huckabee would beat McCain
Huckabee=Success

teseract

02-10-2008, 11:20 AM

Its impossible....but I wish Huckabee would beat McCain
Huckabee=Success

Huckabee is nothing more than the christian version of The Ayatollah

Kelly

02-10-2008, 12:55 PM

Its impossible....but I wish Huckabee would beat McCain
Huckabee=Success

You honestly believe that Huckabee would have a chance at beating one of the Democrat candidates.......really?...................cause, thats kinda funny.

The Senator

02-10-2008, 12:57 PM

You honestly believe that Huckabee would have a chance at beating one of the Democrat candidates.......really?...................cause, thats kinda funny.

In a poll released before Super Tuesday, Barack Obama led Huckabee by 20 points, and Hillary led him by fourteen.

SuBe

02-10-2008, 02:00 PM

Its impossible....but I wish Huckabee would beat McCain
Huckabee=Success
Agreed, with his stance on the Fairtax, if he would, especially right now with this being the Tax season, go out and REALLY sell the Fairtax to the American People, (or should I say, the Media tell the story of the Fairtax and Huckabee's support of it) then he would have a chance.

If you truly desire economic liberty, you should support Huckabee.

teseract

02-10-2008, 07:27 PM

If you truly desire economic liberty, you should support Huckabee.

...and if you truly desire civil liberty, you should leave him standing outside, in the rain... all alone.

LuiECuomo

02-10-2008, 07:42 PM

Very interesting, allow me to play devil's advocate for a second.

When does the political become the personal?

I don't think it's as easy as you make it out to be. Lets take your position. If I were a gay man and would have a friend, with whom I disagree politically because he's, lets say, a Republican and said friend, if he himself has nothing against gays, heck, maybe is even pro gay, would vote the party, allthough he knows that the party line if vehemently anti-gay, I would really consider severing ties. I mean it would come off to me as the ultimate form of betrayal, if someone I call a friend votes people into power who's mission seems to be, to make my live as miserable as possible. I don't think personal issues and political issues can be separated that easily.

That argument doesn't hold that much weight. Why? Because to some people, gay marriage is a non-issue. If gay marriage is the focus of your political passion, then so be it. But say I were pro-gay marriage, but my favored candidate is anti-gay marriage. If I agree with this candidate on every other issue except for gay marriage, I'm not going to vote for someone else. Why? Because I am not gay and gay marriage has no meaning to me. I don't intend for this to sound mean or harsh but because I am not gay, it doesn't effect me, and there are far more pressing issues that this country is currently facing in my eyes.

teseract

02-10-2008, 07:58 PM

That argument doesn't hold that much weight. Why? Because to some people, gay marriage is a non-issue. If gay marriage is the focus of your political passion, then so be it. But say I were pro-gay marriage, but my favored candidate is anti-gay marriage. If I agree with this candidate on every other issue except for gay marriage, I'm not going to vote for someone else. Why? Because I am not gay and gay marriage has no meaning to me. I don't intend for this to sound mean or harsh but because I am not gay, it doesn't effect me, and there are far more pressing issues that this country is currently facing in my eyes.
And if you would be a personal friend of mine, doing that (this is all hypothetical play, since, if you read my former post you know, I'm trying to imagine my reaction, if I would be gay.) I would severe ties with you immediately, because I would ask myself "How, in good conciousness, as a friend of mine, can he elect someone who tries to make my live miserable?" It would be a major betrayal of trust to me. To some, politics is nothing but a game, to others, it directly impacts on their lives in crucial ways.

The Senator

02-10-2008, 08:07 PM

Very interesting, allow me to play devil's advocate for a second.

When does the political become the personal?

I don't think it's as easy as you make it out to be. Lets take your position. If I were a gay man and would have a friend, with whom I disagree politically because he's, lets say, a Republican and said friend, if he himself has nothing against gays, heck, maybe is even pro gay, would vote the party, allthough he knows that the party line if vehemently anti-gay, I would really consider severing ties. I mean it would come off to me as the ultimate form of betrayal, if someone I call a friend votes people into power who's mission seems to be, to make my live as miserable as possible. I don't think personal issues and political issues can be separated that easily.

First things first: I have conservative and evangelical conservative friends who are aware that I am gay and in a relationship with another man. If they oppose my partnership with my boyfriend, they're really keeping it a secret.

I don't care what someone's political view on the issue is. But if someone smothers me in anti-gay rhetoric, then I don't want a part of it. Thankfully, I have friends who at least know where the line is, and they haven't even considered overstepping it.

That said, I don't care if a friend of mine votes for Mike Huckabee or Dennis Kucinich, honestly. Until they attack me personally, I will remain friends with him or her for as long as I can. It's the politics of marriage, not the holocaust. And chances are, there are a hundred other reasons why they support a certain candidate other than gay marriage-- or at least that's the case with my evangelical Christian conservative friends.

teseract

02-10-2008, 08:12 PM

First things first: I have conservative and evangelical conservative friends who are aware that I am gay and in a relationship with another man. If they oppose my partnership with my boyfriend, they're really keeping it a secret.

I don't care what someone's political view on the issue is. But if someone smothers me in anti-gay rhetoric, then I don't want a part of it. Thankfully, I have friends who at least know where the line is, and they haven't even considered overstepping it.

That said, I don't care if a friend of mine votes for Mike Huckabee or Dennis Kucinich, honestly. Until they attack me personally, I will remain friends with him or her for as long as I can. It's the politics of marriage, not the holocaust. And chances are, there are a hundred other reasons why they support a certain candidate other than gay marriage-- or at least that's the case with my evangelical Christian conservative friends.
Admirable, I wouldn't be so forgiving.

Lightning Strykez!

02-10-2008, 08:12 PM

Both Hillary and Obama want to basically just pull, out and that would just simply be catostrophic.

More catastrophic than McCain's promise to stay there for another "100 years" if necessary? :whatever:

Lightning Strykez!

02-10-2008, 08:14 PM

Its impossible....but I wish Huckabee would beat McCain
Huckabee=Success

Wait. You...you actually think Huckabee could beat Clinton or Obama in a matchup? Seriously??

HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAAA!!!

:lmao:

SuBe

02-10-2008, 08:20 PM

...and if you truly desire civil liberty, you should leave him standing outside, in the rain... all alone.
Awe... that's a sad picture.

What leads you to believe that he would take away any civil liberty from you? Economic Liberty is the ultimate liberty.

LuiECuomo

02-10-2008, 08:39 PM

Admirable, I wouldn't be so forgiving.

Wow, you sound like you have a pretty big chip on your shoulder. Are you gay?

The Senator

02-10-2008, 08:49 PM

Awe... that's a sad picture.

What leads you to believe that he would take away any civil liberty from you? Economic Liberty is the ultimate liberty.

Not if you're either a homosexual, an atheist, a Jew, a Muslim, a Buddhist, or anyone else who wouldn't benefit from tacking an amendment to the Constitution which would 'reflect God's laws.'

LuiECuomo

02-10-2008, 08:58 PM

That's not going to happen.

SuBe

02-10-2008, 09:14 PM

Not if you're either a homosexual, an atheist, a Jew, a Muslim, a Buddhist, or anyone else who wouldn't benefit from tacking an amendment to the Constitution which would 'reflect God's laws.'
What could he possibly do to the Constitution that wouldn't take 3/4 of all of congress to vote for? And, wouldn't they be to blame for passing the Amendment?

Kelly

02-10-2008, 09:15 PM

Yeah, people are giving the Pres, WAAAAAY too much power........its just not there.....

The Senator

02-10-2008, 09:38 PM

The fact that he's calling for the amendment, though, turns me off entirely. Obviously, he wouldn't get it passed... but to know that there's a chance he'll actually fight for it is frightening none the less.

bell110

02-10-2008, 09:59 PM

Unfortunately, it looks like Big Mac is the last resort.:csad:

As to voting 3rd party, the highest percentage of votes was for what, Perot and it was 19% if I'm not mistaken. I'm going to cast my vote and it should actually make a difference, not voting for a losing effort for the hell of it. Big Mac holds a handful of my views, which is more than a say for the rest.:csad:

You don't think that 19% made a differnce :huh:

BlackLantern

02-10-2008, 10:05 PM

You don't think that 19% made a differnce :huh:

No...not really....unless there is a drastic change or a figure of note decides to run third party, I dont see a third party candidate ever getting the White House

The Senator

02-10-2008, 10:12 PM

No...not really....unless there is a drastic change or a figure of note decides to run third party, I dont see a third party candidate ever getting the White House

It won't happen this election cycle. Not with three superstars currently vying for the Presidency. All three of them are known nationally, and just about everyone has an opinion of them one way or another.

I could only see it if the government was a complete failure or if we were in some kind of economic depression. As of late, we are not, and the chances of that happening in the future are quite slim. I don't think I'll see it in my lifetime. It might be nice, but I wouldn't place money on it. The best third party candidates can do from here on out would be to serve as potential spoilers, and that's what a Bloomberg/ Nader/ Paul/ Gilchrest/ Dobbs scenario would most likely entail this time around.

hippie_hunter

02-10-2008, 11:17 PM

More catastrophic than McCain's promise to stay there for another "100 years" if necessary? :whatever:

That comment is seriously taken out of context and its meaning has been horribly warped and misleading.

His 100 years comment was refering to how American troops are still in Japan and Korea. He stated that he has no problem with Americans staying in Iraq for the long term and maintaining an American presence as long as American soldiers are not being harmed, injured, or killed just like in Japan and South Korea.

People who spread such misinformation (Obama in particular) should be ashamed of themselves for not even listening or reading the entire quote.

Listen to it (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFknKVjuyNk)

Or you can just read the thing

Q: President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for 50 years — (cut off by McCain)

McCAIN: Make it a hundred.

Q: Is that … (cut off)

McCAIN: We’ve been in South Korea … we’ve been in Japan for 60 years. We’ve been in South Korea 50 years or so. That would be fine with me. As long as Americans …

Q: [tries to say something]

McCAIN: As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. That’s fine with me, I hope that would be fine with you, if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where Al Queada is training and equipping and recruiting and motivating people every single day.

I can understand why someone would not like to vote for McCain. He's spent recent years sucking up to the evangellical and neo-conservative leadership of the Republican Party so he could get as far as he is today (yet that apparently failed). He's supportive of the Iraq War and he believes in a hawkish foreign policy. He's anti-abortion. And while some extremist Republicans try to paint him as a liberal, the man is definetely a conservative.

But not voting for him because of a quote taken out of context is completely stupid.

hippie_hunter

02-10-2008, 11:20 PM

Huckabee is nothing more than the christian version of The Ayatollah

I certainly wouldn't call Huckabee the Christian version of the Ayatollah, but as an atheist, I would be rather uncomfortable with him as President.

At first I kinda liked him due to his explanations of the FairTax and he came off as a rather humorous and likable guy. Sure he's still humorous and likable, but his more recent comments about comparing the Bible and the Constitution made me very, very wary of the guy and his ability to respect the ideal of separation of church and state.

StorminNorman

02-10-2008, 11:40 PM

I can understand why someone would not like to vote for McCain. He's spent recent years sucking up to the evangellical and neo-conservative leadership of the Republican Party so he could get as far as he is today (yet that apparently failed). He's supportive of the Iraq War and he believes in a hawkish foreign policy. He's anti-abortion. And while some extremist Republicans try to paint him as a liberal, the man is definetely a conservative.

But not voting for him because of a quote taken out of context is completely stupid.

I love McCain's view on the issues.

I hate his personality.

bell110

02-11-2008, 03:35 AM

No...not really....unless there is a drastic change or a figure of note decides to run third party, I dont see a third party candidate ever getting the White House

Giving that the '92 election, Clinton and Bush were separated by only 6%, yeah I'd say Perot taking 19% of the votes made a big difference.

Just because the candidate doesn't win, doesn't mean he doesn't make a difference.

S_H_F_4839

02-11-2008, 03:50 AM

You honestly believe that Huckabee would have a chance at beating one of the Democrat candidates.......really?...................cause, thats kinda funny.

if mccain gets it I hope the democrats really nail him with the flip flopping the way the republicans nailed kerry back in 2004.

teseract

02-11-2008, 08:47 AM

Wow, you sound like you have a pretty big chip on your shoulder. Are you gay?
Nope, but I have a very strict definition of loyality in a friendship.

Kelly

02-11-2008, 10:08 AM

if mccain gets it I hope the democrats really nail him with the flip flopping the way the republicans nailed kerry back in 2004.

:huh: :huh: What has he flip flopped on.....??? the only thing that he has not stood strong on is...

1. Secure borders first before any type of amnesty...
2. Make tax cuts permanent...

What else has he flip flopped on?

Romni was the flip flopper, and I'm sorry, but next to political flipping in the dictionary is Kerry.....:o

Malice

02-11-2008, 10:19 AM

I dont think there is a single person in power who has not flip-flopped on an issue.
Now the question is how many of them.

Kelly

02-11-2008, 10:22 AM

I dont think there is a single person in power who has not flip-flopped on an issue.
Now the question is how many of them.

And why......

Malice

02-11-2008, 10:25 AM

And why......

Very true...
I dont mind a little flip-flopping...
That is simply people learning new points and they can decide a new point is better...

Hillary on the other hand seems to bend which ever direction the wind takes her.

Kelly

02-11-2008, 10:33 AM

Very true...
I dont mind a little flip-flopping...
That is simply people learning new points and they can decide a new point is better...

Hillary on the other hand seems to bend which ever direction the wind takes her.

If people knew how conservative I was in college, they would laugh at my thoughts on issues today......people grow, even Senators......lol, and I believe that once you are in office, your ideas to a certain extent will change anyway........growing up, I loved the church, loved going, after working for churches for 10 years of my early adulthood, I find it hard to step into one........when you are a part of the system, and you see the underbelly, thoughts on issues change.......as far as the President, there are some issues I look at and some that I don't......many of the issues that people seem to use to rate the President, are actually state issues, and they really should be looking at who they vote for as Governor and Lieutenant Governor.....

But, changing one's mind because of maturity, etc.....is not that big of a deal.......but changing your mind in order to get elected is very different......and thats how I saw Kerry, and that is why I didn't vote for him, nor would I ever.

sinewave

02-11-2008, 10:47 AM

That comment is seriously taken out of context and its meaning has been horribly warped and misleading.

His 100 years comment was refering to how American troops are still in Japan and Korea. He stated that he has no problem with Americans staying in Iraq for the long term and maintaining an American presence as long as American soldiers are not being harmed, injured, or killed just like in Japan and South Korea.

People who spread such misinformation (Obama in particular) should be ashamed of themselves for not even listening or reading the entire quote.

Listen to it (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFknKVjuyNk)

Or you can just read the thing

I can understand why someone would not like to vote for McCain. He's spent recent years sucking up to the evangellical and neo-conservative leadership of the Republican Party so he could get as far as he is today (yet that apparently failed). He's supportive of the Iraq War and he believes in a hawkish foreign policy. He's anti-abortion. And while some extremist Republicans try to paint him as a liberal, the man is definetely a conservative.

But not voting for him because of a quote taken out of context is completely stupid.

that's not being taken out of context at all. it's no secret that the fundamentalist muslim community has a problem with western influence and occupation of their region. bin laden has said as much before. keeping a permanent presence in iraq is a hell of a lot different than having a presence in other westernized countries like germany. there's no way in hell our troops wouldn't to be a target in that region, were a permanent base established, like it appears is happening. it'll just be used as a recruiting tool for the jihadists to get the evil infidels out of their holy land. why is that so hard to understand for republicans?

Malice

02-11-2008, 10:48 AM

If people knew how conservative I was in college, they would laugh at my thoughts on issues today......people grow, even Senators......lol, and I believe that once you are in office, your ideas to a certain extent will change anyway........growing up, I loved the church, loved going, after working for churches for 10 years of my early adulthood, I find it hard to step into one........when you are a part of the system, and you see the underbelly, thoughts on issues change.......as far as the President, there are some issues I look at and some that I don't......many of the issues that people seem to use to rate the President, are actually state issues, and they really should be looking at who they vote for as Governor and Lieutenant Governor.....

But, changing one's mind because of maturity, etc.....is not that big of a deal.......but changing your mind in order to get elected is very different......and thats how I saw Kerry, and that is why I didn't vote for him, nor would I ever.

I agree whole heartedly.

Genesis 1.0

02-11-2008, 11:52 AM

Heh, I’ll try to reply to everything directed at me while I was away in one sweep and a few that weren’t.

You mean that term that O'reilly invented for his "culture warrior" book? The one that didn't become a worldwide buzzword?

Eh, it seems to fit the bill, no pun intended. Secular is the opposite to religion, and those of this agenda want to push that movement forward, thus progressive. There really isn’t anything negative in the term itself, just the aura it’s gained from it’s speaker. No worse than terms like the ‘religious right’ ect. It’s all in how it’s framed.

not at all. i'm saying that the term "liberal" seems to be a catchall for anything that's not conservative. the right-wing throws the term around whenever they need to subtly (and sometimes not so) disparage the democrats. there are degrees to a person's political ideology on both sides of the spectrum, but when you lump everyone left of center into one big group with the same label, it's a very convenient way of taking digs at the entire group, even though the extremists are a minority within that group and the majority happen to be made up of average, everyday people who are nothing like the baby-killing, vegan, communist hedonists the far-right would have you believe they are. that's what i'm talking about. do you get it now?

I got it the first time, but thanks for the concern. What you still seem to be missing is that my point in replying to that was to correct the statement you made concerning the left. You said there was no correlating portion of the left that was as extreme as the right simply because they don’t have a shiny new badge with their names on it i.e. ‘neo-con’. They’re there, under whatever label you choose to place on them.

As to the Republicans use of the word ‘liberal’, it does have a negative connotation that stems from decades of use concerning the perceived weakness and/or flaws of the Democratic Party’s more extreme members. It’s evident though that a sizeable number of Democrats don’t call or consider themselves liberal, which to me, dictates a distinction within the Party itself.

I think there is a difference between being depressed that your primary choice is out........and just not voting. If it looks like there is chance that an opposing candidate that you absolutely do not want in office, then you better sure as hell vote....against that candidate.

Pretty much sums up this thread’s title and conclusion by Malice and others who share that view. Our most viable chance at a real Conservative is gone and now we’ll have to move on to the ‘next best thing’ as it were. Like I said a few pages back, not voting at all in such a pivotal contest is pretty much sitting it out. Which I can’t agree with.

With one exception, the Dems had a good reason to filibuster. It's not good if the Supreme Court becomes a conclave of religious "yes men" and it's equally not good to amend the constitution because some people consider a non-criminal practice icky.

Oh not this again. You always seem to shore up reasons as to why you feel the Democrats are right in doing what they do and why the Republicans are so very wrong for the exact same act. It’s been said numerous times but I’ll say it again: both Parties are equally guilty for this gridlock on Capitol Hill and both sides have their various reasons and none of them amount to much more than partisanship. Simply because you happen to agree with one over the other doesn’t make it any better.

Giving that the '92 election, Clinton and Bush were separated by only 6%, yeah I'd say Perot taking 19% of the votes made a big difference.

Just because the candidate doesn't win, doesn't mean he doesn't make a difference.

The 3rd Party historically captures the remainder of the public that probably wouldn’t have voted anyway. They choose an issue that’s being ignored by both parties and galvanize it, turning what’s essentially scraps into a campaign. From that issue, they sometimes then chip away at various unhappy elements in both Parties.

That 19% could have very well stayed home had he not run, so it’s no guarantee that it would have changed the vote either way.

that's not being taken out of context at all. it's no secret that the fundamentalist muslim community has a problem with western influence and occupation of their region. bin laden has said as much before. keeping a permanent presence in iraq is a hell of a lot different than having a presence in other westernized countries like germany. there's no way in hell our troops wouldn't to be a target in that region, were a permanent base established, like it appears is happening. it'll just be used as a recruiting tool for the jihadists to get the evil infidels out of their holy land. why is that so hard to understand for republicans?

So our bases in Asia are ‘westernized’?

That our troops will be a target is clear, as it would be with nearly any case following a recent conflict. It’s supposed to be there to provide stability and anyone who wants chaos or upheaval would of course target whatever’s holding things down. As to recruitment, well in case you haven’t noticed, they’re going to do that anyway so why not have some security for those citizens that have pinned their success on the U.S. presence in Iraq, those translators and government workers who’ve aided the U.S. and will certainly be targets without aide.

Do you propose we leave them high and dry after they’ve done so much, put their lives and families on the line to help our troops? Having an enduring presence in the area is going to be a necessity for some time. As to the next 100 years comment, he’d be willing to. I’d lay down my life for my wife any day of the week, it doesn’t mean I’m looking forward to it or anticipating it. It means that I’m willing to if the time comes where it’s necessary.

As to why it’s so hard for ‘Republicans’ to understand, well that sounds like a sweeping generalization to me. The same kind you resisted so fiercely a little while back.

And the worm turns, no offense.

hippie_hunter

02-11-2008, 01:09 PM

that's not being taken out of context at all. it's no secret that the fundamentalist muslim community has a problem with western influence and occupation of their region. bin laden has said as much before. keeping a permanent presence in iraq is a hell of a lot different than having a presence in other westernized countries like germany. there's no way in hell our troops wouldn't to be a target in that region, were a permanent base established, like it appears is happening. it'll just be used as a recruiting tool for the jihadists to get the evil infidels out of their holy land. why is that so hard to understand for republicans?

Yes fundamentalist Muslims have a problem with consistence Western influence, occupation, and "aggression" but McCain wasn't refering to staying in Iraq for 100 years in a way that it is today. He's refering that if Iraq ended up successful, he'd have no problem with staying there and maintaining a constant American presence like in South Korea, Germany, and Japan where Americans are not being harmed, injured, and killed.

Besides I don't think that we'll maintain a permanent presence in Iraq like we do in South Korea, Japan, and Germany. Pretty much for the very reason you stated.

LuiECuomo

02-11-2008, 02:17 PM

Nope, but I have a very strict definition of loyality in a friendship.

Well, considering jman IS gay, I'd say his opinion is much more valid on the subject. If someone actually admits to me that he himself is a homosexual and still manages to have friends who are conservative, then that person's opinion means much more to me than the person who "imagines" himself in that gay man's shoes and assumes that he would let politics and/or religion get in between his friendships.

sinewave

02-11-2008, 02:38 PM

I got it the first time, but thanks for the concern. What you still seem to be missing is that my point in replying to that was to correct the statement you made concerning the left. You said there was no correlating portion of the left that was as extreme as the right simply because they don’t have a shiny new badge with their names on it i.e. ‘neo-con’. They’re there, under whatever label you choose to place on them.

no, apparently you're still misunderstanding me. there are definitely extreme liberals who mirror the extreme right. i'm sorry i didn't make that clear enough. the point i was making was that while the right has "neo-cons" and "the religious right" which many of the extreme members of the republican party fall under, there doesn't seem to be the same kind of sub-categories on the left for which to group the extreme member of the democratic party into. republicans usually just chalk them up to being "liberals", therefore making the entire group of "liberals" sound extreme, while those people make up a small minority within the liberal ranks.

As to the Republicans use of the word ‘liberal’, it does have a negative connotation that stems from decades of use concerning the perceived weakness and/or flaws of the Democratic Party’s more extreme members. It’s evident though that a sizeable number of Democrats don’t call or consider themselves liberal, which to me, dictates a distinction within the Party itself.

yep, "perceived weakness" by republicans who can't differentiate the extremists from your average liberal, or don't want to.

So our bases in Asia are ‘westernized’?

completely different culture. asian countries are more accepting of western cultures and aren't full of violent, anti-west religious fundamentalists.

That our troops will be a target is clear, as it would be with nearly any case following a recent conflict. It’s supposed to be there to provide stability and anyone who wants chaos or upheaval would of course target whatever’s holding things down. As to recruitment, well in case you haven’t noticed, they’re going to do that anyway so why not have some security for those citizens that have pinned their success on the U.S. presence in Iraq, those translators and government workers who’ve aided the U.S. and will certainly be targets without aide.

in my opinion, they're violent because we're there in their "holy land". if we'd keep our noses out of their business and let their governments handle it themselves, we wouldn't see them lashing out at us and our allies. i have no problem supporting israel, to a certain extent, but invading sovereign nations, rearranging governments and picking sides in holy wars that date back centuries? no, we've got no business doing any of that and we're finding out the hard way the results of that kind of interventionism.

Do you propose we leave them high and dry after they’ve done so much, put their lives and families on the line to help our troops? Having an enduring presence in the area is going to be a necessity for some time. As to the next 100 years comment, he’d be willing to. I’d lay down my life for my wife any day of the week, it doesn’t mean I’m looking forward to it or anticipating it. It means that I’m willing to if the time comes where it’s necessary.

i'm saying we need to get serious with diplomacy in that region, get the iraqi government to finally take control of their country, take the fight to al qaeda and get the **** out of there. no permanent bases. it will just continue to stir up more unrest in the region as long as we're there. if the iraqi government can finally take control and secure things themselves then between them and a small u.s. military presence at our embassies we should be able to protect our translators and aid workers. a full fledged base is a bad idea, in my opinion.

As to why it’s so hard for ‘Republicans’ to understand, well that sounds like a sweeping generalization to me. The same kind you resisted so fiercely a little while back.

And the worm turns, no offense.

sorry for the generalization. not all republicans think like that, but i've seen republicans of all stripes say something similar, from moderate republicans like hippie-hunter, to moderate-conservative-shapeshifters like giulliani and romney, to hard-right conservatives like rush limbaugh. so, it's a pretty widespread thought across the entire spectrum of the republican party.

Yes fundamentalist Muslims have a problem with consistence Western influence, occupation, and "aggression" but McCain wasn't refering to staying in Iraq for 100 years in a way that it is today. He's refering that if Iraq ended up successful, he'd have no problem with staying there and maintaining a constant American presence like in South Korea, Germany, and Japan where Americans are not being harmed, injured, and killed.

Besides I don't think that we'll maintain a permanent presence in Iraq like we do in South Korea, Japan, and Germany. Pretty much for the very reason you stated.

i just think that it's way too presumptuous at this point to even be thinking of building a base there. we haven't even succeeded in securing the country and we're already planning on a permanent presence there? let's wait until we see how this shakes out before giving them one more reason to resent us. if in 10 years they've fully converted to a healthy, prosperous democracy, the violence is down to almost nothing, we've been welcomed as their saviors and our image on the international stage is back to being positive, then maybe we could think, "think" about installing a permanent base there. it's just sending the wrong message at this point. too many of them see this as another crusade by the "infidels" to take over their holy land, steal their god-given oil and convert them to christianity.

Genesis 1.0

02-12-2008, 09:57 AM

no, apparently you're still misunderstanding me. there are definitely extreme liberals who mirror the extreme right. i'm sorry i didn't make that clear enough. the point i was making was that while the right has "neo-cons" and "the religious right" which many of the extreme members of the republican party fall under, there doesn't seem to be the same kind of sub-categories on the left for which to group the extreme member of the democratic party into. republicans usually just chalk them up to being "liberals", therefore making the entire group of "liberals" sound extreme, while those people make up a small minority within the liberal ranks.

So basically we're arguing over semantics. The left wing extreme being seen as slighted because they've all got one blanket statement, and the right being more privleged because they have several sub-divisions. As Reagan called it, his Three Legged Stool: neocons, econocons, and theocons, each element was originally used to describe the three different agendas within the Party, but now neocons is used exclusively in refrence to the extreme right. The word 'liberal' has been thrown around for 20+ years now with a negative connotation, so it looks to me that several members within the Democratic Party took it upon themselves to take up that mantle and change the way people look at it. Even the media subscribes to this, for example, they just named Obama the most liberal senator, take that as you will.

They'll get a sub-category sooner rather than later, just pick a buzzword that fits.

yep, "perceived weakness" by republicans who can't differentiate the extremists from your average liberal, or don't want to.

'Can't' isn't really the word I'd use, but when it's become such a popular polarizing term, I don't see a change coming until the Democrats change it themselves. They really don't have a term for their own extrem left wing, why expect anyone else to?

completely different culture. asian countries are more accepting of western cultures and aren't full of violent, anti-west religious fundamentalists.

Accepting? I really don't think that carries water. They're less driven by fundamentalists elements that would inspire acts of violence, but by no means does that make them 'accepting'. Bottom line is that they don't want us there either, but we have been and will continue to.

in my opinion, they're violent because we're there in their "holy land". if we'd keep our noses out of their business and let their governments handle it themselves, we wouldn't see them lashing out at us and our allies. i have no problem supporting israel, to a certain extent, but invading sovereign nations, rearranging governments and picking sides in holy wars that date back centuries? no, we've got no business doing any of that and we're finding out the hard way the results of that kind of interventionism.

So just sit back on our laurels with a 'sh-t happens' attitude? No, that isn't the U.S. under Bush and it hasn't been this country's attitude for a long time now. I won't even argue this point too far before it's clear the ideological divide is far too wide, but it's enough to see that their government was incapable of handling itself.

i'm saying we need to get serious with diplomacy in that region, get the iraqi government to finally take control of their country, take the fight to al qaeda and get the **** out of there. no permanent bases. it will just continue to stir up more unrest in the region as long as we're there. if the iraqi government can finally take control and secure things themselves then between them and a small u.s. military presence at our embassies we should be able to protect our translators and aid workers. a full fledged base is a bad idea, in my opinion.

Diplomacy is nothing when it's just on one side. Bush and his advisors drew up the Surge, it's worked but not completely because the Iraqi government makes Washington look productive. As to the second portion, so I guess I have your answer, you'd leave all those who have supported us to die of retribution from the jihadists. All those Iraqi citizens that have put their lives and those of their families on the line to help us, you just up and leave and allow them to die. A 'small' U.S. presence isn't going to be enough to protect these thousands of people that have helped us and you know it.

You say 'pull out and let them handle it', it's ridiculous. Working democracies aren't built in a few years. To think that they'll just be up to functional standards in this short amount of time is insane. The government and millitary has literally been taken apart and is having to be rebuilt, Rome wasn't built in a day. We were the ones who came in and toppled their Regime, we did what we thought was best. So now you propose you right the precieved wrongs of the Bush Administration by leaving them with the mess? I think not. We went in there and took it apart, we should be there long enough to ensure it's at least workign well enough that it won't collapse without us there to buy them time.

Anything else is idiocy.

sorry for the generalization. not all republicans think like that, but i've seen republicans of all stripes say something similar, from moderate republicans like hippie-hunter, to moderate-conservative-shapeshifters like giulliani and romney, to hard-right conservatives like rush limbaugh. so, it's a pretty widespread thought across the entire spectrum of the republican party.

Agreed.

i just think that it's way too presumptuous at this point to even be thinking of building a base there. we haven't even succeeded in securing the country and we're already planning on a permanent presence there? let's wait until we see how this shakes out before giving them one more reason to resent us. if in 10 years they've fully converted to a healthy, prosperous democracy, the violence is down to almost nothing, we've been welcomed as their saviors and our image on the international stage is back to being positive, then maybe we could think, "think" about installing a permanent base there. it's just sending the wrong message at this point. too many of them see this as another crusade by the "infidels" to take over their holy land, steal their god-given oil and convert them to christianity.

We have to think ahead, which is ironic, because the media and a large precentage of the Democratic Party criticized the President for NOT thinking ahead of the present but you feel it's perfectly alright to do now?

Giving them 1 more reason to dislike us on top of the already numeroud hundreds really is nothing more than a drop in the bucket. Whether they like it now or not, when they do have a functional government, when they do have running water, when they do have basic utilities, they will either be thankful to the U.S. or they'll remain resentful. Sometimes you can do everything in the world for people but if they hate you, it really doesn't matter, but that doesn't mean you simply leave them to tear each other apart.

It's not the American way, nor would I want it to be.

BlackLantern

02-12-2008, 09:59 AM

I know Muslims, as a whole are peaceful, but when the fundamentalists are all about destroying Christianity, taking over America, and converting everyone to Muslim,,,thats where things get dicey...

Genesis 1.0

02-12-2008, 10:34 AM

True, which is why I never simply throw the blanket statement over this problem as 'Muslim' or otherwise.

It's always the extremes.

sinewave

02-12-2008, 11:07 AM

So basically we're arguing over semantics. The left wing extreme being seen as slighted because they've all got one blanket statement, and the right being more privleged because they have several sub-divisions. As Reagan called it, his Three Legged Stool: neocons, econocons, and theocons, each element was originally used to describe the three different agendas within the Party, but now neocons is used exclusively in refrence to the extreme right. The word 'liberal' has been thrown around for 20+ years now with a negative connotation, so it looks to me that several members within the Democratic Party took it upon themselves to take up that mantle and change the way people look at it. Even the media subscribes to this, for example, they just named Obama the most liberal senator, take that as you will.

They'll get a sub-category sooner rather than later, just pick a buzzword that fits.

never heard the terms "econocon" or "theocon". that's a little more self-explanatory than lumping everyone into one big bucket. obama get's that label because his voting record trends towards the liberal end of the spectrum, which is fine. at least they get it right sometimes. i just get sick of hearing every conservative campaign ad or every conservative pundit throwing the word liberal around like it's the plague or something.

'Can't' isn't really the word I'd use, but when it's become such a popular polarizing term, I don't see a change coming until the Democrats change it themselves. They really don't have a term for their own extrem left wing, why expect anyone else to?

that's a good way to describe it, "polarizing". it's a political tactic more than anything. generalize, demonize and polarize. politics as usual for the GOP. the dems seem to be fond of the term "progressive", but you'll never hear the conservatives use it because it doesn't have enough bite, compared to "liberal".

Accepting? I really don't think that carries water. They're less driven by fundamentalists elements that would inspire acts of violence, but by no means does that make them 'accepting'. Bottom line is that they don't want us there either, but we have been and will continue to.

umm, compare tokyo to baghdad. which would you say is more "accepting" of western culture? asians copy our culture and take it to extremes in a lot of their bigger cities. not all asian countries are like that, but they seem to be far more accepting of our culture than most middle-eastern countries, aside from less traditionally conservative places like dubai. your attitude towards american supremacy creeps me out.

So just sit back on our laurels with a 'sh-t happens' attitude? No, that isn't the U.S. under Bush and it hasn't been this country's attitude for a long time now. I won't even argue this point too far before it's clear the ideological divide is far too wide, but it's enough to see that their government was incapable of handling itself.

are you even reading my posts? no, i didn't say "let's yank all of our troops out immediately". i said we need to get serious with diplomacy, get the iraqi government to take over their country then take the fight to al qaeda instead of spinning our wheels while being stuck in the middle of a civil war. the surge has been going on for about a year now. wasn't it supposed to be temporary so the iraqi government can get their **** together? that's not happening and there's just more and more bloodshed. our military is stretched to it's limit and all the republicans can do is keep extending tours of duty, throw more troops at the problem while destroying those soldiers and their families' lives. at some point, we're going to have to make a drastic change from the existing plan. our troops can't fix their government or work out any kind of diplomatic solution, so we need our diplomats to engage others in the region to start getting serious. then we can withdraw the troops. look, the republican party has been wrong about everything from the word go. at this point, i can't take anything they say at face value. just the fact that you or anyone else associated with that party thinks something is a bad idea, makes me think it'll work.

Diplomacy is nothing when it's just on one side. Bush and his advisors drew up the Surge, it's worked but not completely because the Iraqi government makes Washington look productive. As to the second portion, so I guess I have your answer, you'd leave all those who have supported us to die of retribution from the jihadists. All those Iraqi citizens that have put their lives and those of their families on the line to help us, you just up and leave and allow them to die. A 'small' U.S. presence isn't going to be enough to protect these thousands of people that have helped us and you know it.

that's the kind of attitude that got us into this mess. it's not "one sided". we just haven't gone about it in a competent manor. i agree the iraqi's haven't done enough to take control of their country, but alienating countries like iran and syria aren't helping the situation in iraq or the region as a whole. instead of all that macho "axis of evil" b.s. bush keeps spouting, why not tone down our differences and stop drawing lines in the sand and maybe there will be less resentment towards our efforts in that region and we can start putting forth a unified effort to stamp out extremism there. the rest of this post is so far off the mark on my points i won't even bother responding to it.

You say 'pull out and let them handle it', it's ridiculous. Working democracies aren't built in a few years. To think that they'll just be up to functional standards in this short amount of time is insane. The government and millitary has literally been taken apart and is having to be rebuilt, Rome wasn't built in a day. We were the ones who came in and toppled their Regime, we did what we thought was best. So now you propose you right the precieved wrongs of the Bush Administration by leaving them with the mess? I think not. We went in there and took it apart, we should be there long enough to ensure it's at least workign well enough that it won't collapse without us there to buy them time.

Anything else is idiocy.

nice try ignoring my points and inserting your own words. we were told going into this that everything would be done within a matter of weeks, if not months, and here we are 5 years later with no end in sight. sorry, but you guys lost the right to make these types of decisions when it turned out everything you said was dead wrong. i love that "rome wasn't built in a day" line. that'll look nice on a bumper sticker with the rest of the catch phrases like "we'll be greeted as liberators" and "the world is safer since we invaded iraq and removed saddam from power". oh, and who dismantled the government and military? yeah, that worked out brilliantly. i can see it now, a democrat wins the presidency and starts removing troops from iraq within a year and the republicans will ***** and moan about how "the liberals lost this war for us", even though it was all republican mistakes that got us into it. that'll be a rally cry for your party for years to come, i'm sure.

Agreed.

at least we can agree on something.

We have to think ahead, which is ironic, because the media and a large precentage of the Democratic Party criticized the President for NOT thinking ahead of the present but you feel it's perfectly alright to do now?

Giving them 1 more reason to dislike us on top of the already numeroud hundreds really is nothing more than a drop in the bucket. Whether they like it now or not, when they do have a functional government, when they do have running water, when they do have basic utilities, they will either be thankful to the U.S. or they'll remain resentful. Sometimes you can do everything in the world for people but if they hate you, it really doesn't matter, but that doesn't mean you simply leave them to tear each other apart.

It's not the American way, nor would I want it to be.

no, that's reason #1 why they hate us and have a "jihad" against us. they don't want us there meddling with their **** and killing their citizens in botched bombing runs. that's what started this whole thing and it's their number one recruiting tool. that's a lot of "whens" after spending 5 years and hundreds of billions of dollars there to supposedly fix all that stuff up. how's haliburton's revenue stream since this war began? plenty of no-bid contracts and huge bonuses have been thrown at them (our tax dollars) and they still can't get electricity or running water to most of the country. what a disgrace. if that's your idea of "the american way" then i want nothing to do with your america.

Genesis 1.0

02-12-2008, 11:49 AM

never heard the terms "econocon" or "theocon". that's a little more self-explanatory than lumping everyone into one big bucket. obama get's that label because his voting record trends towards the liberal end of the spectrum, which is fine. at least they get it right sometimes. i just get sick of hearing every conservative campaign ad or every conservative pundit throwing the word liberal around like it's the plague or something.

Liberal is the opposite to Conservative, it's day and night. It's the same on the other side of the coin, if someone called Hillary a 'Conservative' she'd take it as a slap in the face. The exact same with McCain being seen as 'Liberal'. It's a partisan thing which works both ways. Simply because the only term used towards Democrats aside from just that, is Liberal, so allow the Democrats to start using another title for the remainder of the Party.

I don't think that's going to happen especially since both candidates seem to relish that title, as does a large wedge of the public officials within the Party. As long as they wear it as a badge of honor, everyone will continue to use it.

that's a good way to describe it, "polarizing". it's a political tactic more than anything. generalize, demonize and polarize. politics as usual for the GOP. the dems seem to be fond of the term "progressive", but you'll never hear the conservatives use it because it doesn't have enough bite, compared to "liberal".

It's a descriptive term as well as a handy label for energizing the base. Liberal within itself is not a negative word and as I said before, the Democrats up front don't seem to mind it.

As to the word 'progressive' I used that term at the top of the argument and was completely rebuffed by Addendum because O Riley used it. Secular progressive isn't a bad term but it seems that like Liberal, it's anethma to some.

umm, compare tokyo to baghdad. which would you say is more "accepting" of western culture? asians copy our culture and take it to extremes in a lot of their bigger cities. not all asian countries are like that, but they seem to be far more accepting of our culture than most middle-eastern countries, aside from less traditionally conservative places like dubai. your attitude towards american supremacy creeps me out.

I can pretty much guarantee that if you asked a group of Japanese, Chinese, or anyone that happens to be Asian if they're 'accepting' of the West and I'm pretty sure you'll get a 'no'. many countries have taken bits and pieces of American culture and utilized them in their own way, that by no means makes them accepting.

Oh and nice attempt at a dig with the whole 'American supremacy' deal. I'll pass on continuing in that vein.

are you even reading my posts? no, i didn't say "let's yank all of our troops out immediately". i said we need to get serious with diplomacy, get the iraqi government to take over their country then take the fight to al qaeda instead of spinning our wheels while being stuck in the middle of a civil war. the surge has been going on for about a year now. wasn't it supposed to be temporary so the iraqi government can get their **** together? that's not happening and there's just more and more bloodshed. our military is stretched to it's limit and all the republicans can do is keep extending tours of duty, throw more troops at the problem while destroying those soldiers and their families' lives. at some point, we're going to have to make a drastic change from the existing plan. our troops can't fix their government or work out any kind of diplomatic solution, so we need our diplomats to engage others in the region to start getting serious. then we can withdraw the troops. look, the republican party has been wrong about everything from the word go. at this point, i can't take anything they say at face value. just the fact that you or anyone else associated with that party thinks something is a bad idea, makes me think it'll work.

Trust me, I wouldn't bother wasting my time for the past 2 days if I wasn't reading your posts, not much of a debate if I didn't.

You said get them the hell out, now call m crazy, but that doesn't screa, gradual reduction. That sounds like 'yank them out', so perhaps you need to do a better job of phrasing your statements. It's interesting, you say you don't just want to up and leave but you support a Party that has a very direct element that wants to do just that. As to the Civil War argument, that's become such a 'liberal' media banner. I don't hear this inane argument when they're talking about the racial cleansing in Darfur, what the hell do you call that exactly? OK. By no means does this excuse a retreat, simply all the more reason to mediate an end to it. Just because it's been going on for so long does NOT mean it need continue.

All the Republicans want to do? Now how many times in the last few posts have you continued to generalize and then argue because the Right does the same? Looking past the hypocrisy, it's a fact that the Iraqi government hasn't lived up to it's part of the bargain, I've already stated that clearly, but our troops have. In all that was in our power, the Surge was a success, the other end was not. The window was open and still is because of it for the Iraqi government to get their sh-t to egther, and that's what it all boils down to.

Your attidude is exactly what's wrong with the American public, they want everything done in a flash and if it isn't done by then, throw a tantrum. War isn't easy, it isn't simple, and it's not a microwave dinner. This is NOT something we can simply pack up and leave on. If anything, it's more important that those 5 years not be thrown away like it was nothing simply because of political posturing. People die in wars, people get hurt, families lose their sons and daughters. Contrary to what you might see on the news, which gains ratings by showing the negative, there is still large support from those families with members overseas. Retreat isn't a strategy, it isn't a 'drastic change' it's an excuse.

As to the Republicans being wrong from the start and you going in whatever direction they aren't, it's sad. First off, it was more than just Republicans that agreed to go into this war. Secondly, you're simply combating what you see as partisanship with blind partisanship. "I'm not going to agree even if it makes sense because you're a Republican". Idiocy. Disagreeing on the basis of political affiliation alone is not the answer, it's simply prepetuating the same.

that's the kind of attitude that got us into this mess. it's not "one sided". we just haven't gone about it in a competent manor. i agree the iraqi's haven't done enough to take control of their country, but alienating countries like iran and syria aren't helping the situation in iraq or the region as a whole. instead of all that macho "axis of evil" b.s. bush keeps spouting, why not tone down our differences and stop drawing lines in the sand and maybe there will be less resentment towards our efforts in that region and we can start putting forth a unified effort to stamp out extremism there. the rest of this post is so far off the mark on my points i won't even bother responding to it.

Okay, so we compromise our standards and try and leave a fledgling democracy under the caring wings of IRAN and SYRIA? Because they know so much about how a democracy should function. Because they have absolutely nothing to gain from choas in Iraq. Because they won't move in to take advantage as soon as the U.S. pulls out. Heh, you've got to be kidding me.

nice try ignoring my points and inserting your own words. we were told going into this that everything would be done within a matter of weeks, if not months, and here we are 5 years later with no end in sight. sorry, but you guys lost the right to make these types of decisions when it turned out everything you said was dead wrong. i love that "rome wasn't built in a day" line. that'll look nice on a bumper sticker with the rest of the catch phrases like "we'll be greeted as liberators" and "the world is safer since we invaded iraq and removed saddam from power". oh, and who dismantled the government and military? yeah, that worked out brilliantly. i can see it now, a democrat wins the presidency and starts removing troops from iraq within a year and the republicans will ***** and moan about how "the liberals lost this war for us", even though it was all republican mistakes that got us into it. that'll be a rally cry for your party for years to come, i'm sure.

Heh, yeah just keep *****ing about what went wrong instead of trying to make it right. THAT'S the key! Let's just keep focused on the hindsight, it's so much easier than confronting and solving the problem. Brilliant.

It's a nice line and it's true. Democracies aren't buitl overnight or in 5 years. We've been around what, 231 years and we still don't have it down right, but you expect the transition for Iraqis to be so much smoother? Give me a break. As to a Democratic President pulling troops out, yeah, they will have QUIT and by definition, LOST this war. You can either fight on and come from behind to win or you can take your ball and go home. It's unfortunate that so many members of the Democratic Party want to retreat, want to quit but don't want the label, don't want the consequence of that action laid at their feet.

No one wins by quitting.

at least we can agree on something.

Gets more bizzare by the minute.

no, that's reason #1 why they hate us and have a "jihad" against us. they don't want us there meddling with their **** and killing their citizens in botched bombing runs. that's what started this whole thing and it's their number one recruiting tool. that's a lot of "whens" after spending 5 years and hundreds of billions of dollars there to supposedly fix all that stuff up. how's haliburton's revenue stream since this war began? plenty of no-bid contracts and huge bonuses have been thrown at them (our tax dollars) and they still can't get electricity or running water to most of the country. what a disgrace. if that's your idea of "the american way" then i want nothing to do with your america.

There has NEVER been a war without civillian casualties. So I'm sorry to burst your bubble but it's not an invention of the Republican Party the past 5 years. You'll have to strike that off the grocery list of fault you have for Bush. Sorry.

You ever tried getting an entire country's infastructure fixed? Didn't think so. And for your information, there are areas where the utlities DO work and where they have done their job. I know your 'Give it to me now' complex makes this difficult to understand, but some things take time.

Ah and if your American Way adds up to taking your ball and going home, concentrating on the past instead of the future, blaming everyone else for the same thing you do, and wanting everything in 30 minutes or less, I must respectfully decline your invitation to that America.

sinewave

02-12-2008, 02:55 PM

Liberal is the opposite to Conservative, it's day and night. It's the same on the other side of the coin, if someone called Hillary a 'Conservative' she'd take it as a slap in the face. The exact same with McCain being seen as 'Liberal'. It's a partisan thing which works both ways. Simply because the only term used towards Democrats aside from just that, is Liberal, so allow the Democrats to start using another title for the remainder of the Party.

I don't think that's going to happen especially since both candidates seem to relish that title, as does a large wedge of the public officials within the Party. As long as they wear it as a badge of honor, everyone will continue to use it.

It's a descriptive term as well as a handy label for energizing the base. Liberal within itself is not a negative word and as I said before, the Democrats up front don't seem to mind it.

As to the word 'progressive' I used that term at the top of the argument and was completely rebuffed by Addendum because O Riley used it. Secular progressive isn't a bad term but it seems that like Liberal, it's anethma to some.

thanks for pointing out the obvious. not sure what you're shooting for with that clinton conservative remark, but it doesn't exactly address my point, which is that the republican party treats all dems as "liberals" and has demonized that term, while it's definitely not the same on the conservative side. how many dems do you know that refer to themselves as "liberal", aside from kucinich? none, because of its negative connotations. thanks republicans! would you say the term "conservative" has negative connotations within the republican ranks?

I can pretty much guarantee that if you asked a group of Japanese, Chinese, or anyone that happens to be Asian if they're 'accepting' of the West and I'm pretty sure you'll get a 'no'. many countries have taken bits and pieces of American culture and utilized them in their own way, that by no means makes them accepting.

Oh and nice attempt at a dig with the whole 'American supremacy' deal. I'll pass on continuing in that vein.

i'll take that bet, especially when compared to a mid-easterner.

Trust me, I wouldn't bother wasting my time for the past 2 days if I wasn't reading your posts, not much of a debate if I didn't.

You said get them the hell out, now call m crazy, but that doesn't screa, gradual reduction. That sounds like 'yank them out', so perhaps you need to do a better job of phrasing your statements. It's interesting, you say you don't just want to up and leave but you support a Party that has a very direct element that wants to do just that. As to the Civil War argument, that's become such a 'liberal' media banner. I don't hear this inane argument when they're talking about the racial cleansing in Darfur, what the hell do you call that exactly? OK. By no means does this excuse a retreat, simply all the more reason to mediate an end to it. Just because it's been going on for so long does NOT mean it need continue.

still cherry-picking my posts, huh? i notice you glossed over the part where i talked about how "we need to get serious with diplomacy, get the iraqi government to take over their country then take the fight to al qaeda instead of spinning our wheels while being stuck in the middle of a civil war." as for my support of the democratic party, should i support a "let's stay there for 100 years" party instead? i think i'd call the situation in darfur the same as everyone else, a "genocide". but please, do tell me what you call people from different sects going to war against their fellow countrymen, because if that's not a "civil war" then i'd love to know what to call it. is it "sectarian strife"? sounds like a cute buzz term for a civil war to me. yeah, i love the terms you guys love throwing around, "retreat", "quit", "cut-and-run". i swear, you republicans treat politics and war like they're sporting events. it's all "you're either with us or against us" and "anyone who doesn't see things our way is a traitor". it's such immature, assinine behavior. must be that whole alpha-male, macho bull**** you guys seems to eat up with a spoon, from your creepy infatuation with guys like john wayne and ronald reagan to all that faux-patriotic catchphrases like "these colors don't run". it's all masterbatory bull****.

All the Republicans want to do? Now how many times in the last few posts have you continued to generalize and then argue because the Right does the same? Looking past the hypocrisy, it's a fact that the Iraqi government hasn't lived up to it's part of the bargain, I've already stated that clearly, but our troops have. In all that was in our power, the Surge was a success, the other end was not. The window was open and still is because of it for the Iraqi government to get their sh-t to egther, and that's what it all boils down to.

ok, well i guess that's too bad for you. i'm sick what the republican party stands for, so unless a republican actively separates himself from those policies and conduct, i'm more than happy to generalize at this point. but why do you care? you said both sides play the same games, so obviously you're aware of how ****ty your party can be.

Your attidude is exactly what's wrong with the American public, they want everything done in a flash and if it isn't done by then, throw a tantrum. War isn't easy, it isn't simple, and it's not a microwave dinner. This is NOT something we can simply pack up and leave on. If anything, it's more important that those 5 years not be thrown away like it was nothing simply because of political posturing. People die in wars, people get hurt, families lose their sons and daughters. Contrary to what you might see on the news, which gains ratings by showing the negative, there is still large support from those families with members overseas. Retreat isn't a strategy, it isn't a 'drastic change' it's an excuse.

ah, more rhetoric. yeah, that's great that your leaders can make false claims that going into the war we'd have no trouble removing saddam, installing a democracy and then sitting on our laurels while scrapbooking all the flowers that we were showered with by the iraqis just weeks after we invaded. that's a nice little fairy tale, but none of it turned out like that, and now you guys are changing your tune, since you can't fall back on those lies anymore. "ignore the man behind the curtain. he doesn't exist." nice way to change the subject. it's gone from, "this'll be a piece of cake" to "rome wasn't built in a day". oh, and tell me about the support we're getting from the over 2 million refugees who've fled iraq. or the family members of the hundreds of thousands iraqi's who've died since we invaded. i'm sure they'd take solace in your cute little catch phrases like "retreat isn't a strategy".

As to the Republicans being wrong from the start and you going in whatever direction they aren't, it's sad. First off, it was more than just Republicans that agreed to go into this war. Secondly, you're simply combating what you see as partisanship with blind partisanship. "I'm not going to agree even if it makes sense because you're a Republican". Idiocy. Disagreeing on the basis of political affiliation alone is not the answer, it's simply prepetuating the same.

it was republicans who pushed for this war. it was republicans who cherry-picked intel or just plain made it up and presented it as hard and fast proof. it was republicans who defended their president when things were obviously going down the crapper. it was republicans who outted a covert cia agent who specialized in the field of nuclear proliferation while we were making a case for war against a country we accused of having nukes. it was the republicans who fought oversight on the reconstruction or iraq that resulted in all those failed no-bid contracts and allowed private militias like blackwater to run roughshod over the country with no adherence to anybody's laws. it was the republicans who declared "mission accomplished" three weeks after the war started. should i go on?

Okay, so we compromise our standards and try and leave a fledgling democracy under the caring wings of IRAN and SYRIA? Because they know so much about how a democracy should function. Because they have absolutely nothing to gain from choas in Iraq. Because they won't move in to take advantage as soon as the U.S. pulls out. Heh, you've got to be kidding me.

i didn't say "leave them under the caring wings of iran and syria". i said we should try and get them involved in the diplomatic process and the war on terrorism. we had tons of support from the international community after 9/11. even iran offered their support, but bush squandered that by adding them to the axis of evil. why wouldn't those countries want peace in their region. it hurts them too if they're embroiled in a fullscale war. do you think things are just magically going to get better there without any sort of meaningful diplomacy?

Heh, yeah just keep *****ing about what went wrong instead of trying to make it right. THAT'S the key! Let's just keep focused on the hindsight, it's so much easier than confronting and solving the problem. Brilliant.

It's a nice line and it's true. Democracies aren't buitl overnight or in 5 years. We've been around what, 231 years and we still don't have it down right, but you expect the transition for Iraqis to be so much smoother? Give me a break. As to a Democratic President pulling troops out, yeah, they will have QUIT and by definition, LOST this war. You can either fight on and come from behind to win or you can take your ball and go home. It's unfortunate that so many members of the Democratic Party want to retreat, want to quit but don't want the label, don't want the consequence of that action laid at their feet.

No one wins by quitting.

nice, just ignore your mistakes. that's what got us into this **** in the first place. we ignored our mistakes in wars like vietnam and did the same damn thing with iraq. i wonder how quick you would be to change the subject on all those mistakes if they had been made by a democratic president? more sporting analogies. is someone pulling your string? you should work for a conservative bumper sticker manufacturer. you're coming up with some doozies.

There has NEVER been a war without civillian casualties. So I'm sorry to burst your bubble but it's not an invention of the Republican Party the past 5 years. You'll have to strike that off the grocery list of fault you have for Bush. Sorry.

You ever tried getting an entire country's infastructure fixed? Didn't think so. And for your information, there are areas where the utlities DO work and where they have done their job. I know your 'Give it to me now' complex makes this difficult to understand, but some things take time.

Ah and if your American Way adds up to taking your ball and going home, concentrating on the past instead of the future, blaming everyone else for the same thing you do, and wanting everything in 30 minutes or less, I must respectfully decline your invitation to that America.

the old, "you can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs" excuse? when that many people are dead and that many lives have been ruined by something we started, something that had absolutely nothing to do with our "war on terror", i have a hard time accepting that pithy excuse.

yes, i've tried getting an entire country's infrastructure fixed. who hasn't? :whatever:

what happened to all the progress we were making? we've sunk billions of dollars into the reconstruction of iraq, and 5 years later, which is a long time, regardless of what you think, more people are without power now than at any point in saddam's reign of power. they're in a medical crisis since a majority of their medical professionals have fled the country due to the violence. they're in a ****ty situation, but according to bush, there's progress being made. well not fast enough. meanwhile companies like haliburton continue to rake in our tax dollars for ****ing up their duties. way to go! it's funny, you're impatient with the iraqi government for not taking control of their country, but you give ours a free pass for all the delays and ****ups with the reconstruction.

just curious, how long to you see this surge lasting? if this fight is so important to iraq's future democracy, the stability of the middle-east and our safety here in the states, why didn't we just re-instate the draft and hit them with everything we have? if it's the biggest fight of our lifetimes why didn't we go all-in? why did general shinseki get fired for suggesting we needed more troops on the ground when we entered iraq? why does the bush administration get the benefit of the doubt after all their, as you put it in an earlier post "perceived wrongs"? so many questions, so little time.

Kelly

02-12-2008, 04:40 PM

Damn, do you guys have cliff notes for those posts....

Genesis 1.0

02-12-2008, 04:49 PM

thanks for pointing out the obvious. not sure what you're shooting for with that clinton conservative remark, but it doesn't exactly address my point, which is that the republican party treats all dems as "liberals" and has demonized that term, while it's definitely not the same on the conservative side. how many dems do you know that refer to themselves as "liberal", aside from kucinich? none, because of its negative connotations. thanks republicans! would you say the term "conservative" has negative connotations within the republican ranks?

It addressed the point, just not in the light you wanted it in. Ah but to your question of why even Democrats won't take up that mantle, it's false. There are several other members within the Democratic Party that have referred to themselves and their Party as Liberal.

The simple fact that your own Party is too afraid to take up a title that some Democrats on the grass roots level wouldn't mind seeing is that just like other political terms, Liberal has negative connotations. Not just because of Republican members, hate to burst your bubble, but because of the types of people that have subscribed to the title. Liberals and Hippies were synonomous in the late 60's and throughout the 70's. Liberal policies are not in tune with the American public.

The people have entire teams taking Polls and getting information about what they think the public wants to hear. If the term liberal was in step with the mood of the American public, they'd be using it but it's not. The simple fact of the matter is that most Americans wouldn't describe themselves as Liberal, bottom line.

So don't thank the Republican Party for your Party's inability to grow a set and stand up and outside the shadow cast by these 'negative connotations'. Go send your complaints to your state's represenative.

i'll take that bet, especially when compared to a mid-easterner.

Fine with me, you're on the losing end of it.

still cherry-picking my posts, huh? i notice you glossed over the part where i talked about how "we need to get serious with diplomacy, get the iraqi government to take over their country then take the fight to al qaeda instead of spinning our wheels while being stuck in the middle of a civil war." as for my support of the democratic party, should i support a "let's stay there for 100 years" party instead? i think i'd call the situation in darfur the same as everyone else, a "genocide". but please, do tell me what you call people from different sects going to war against their fellow countrymen, because if that's not a "civil war" then i'd love to know what to call it. is it "sectarian strife"? sounds like a cute buzz term for a civil war to me. yeah, i love the terms you guys love throwing around, "retreat", "quit", "cut-and-run". i swear, you republicans treat politics and war like they're sporting events. it's all "you're either with us or against us" and "anyone who doesn't see things our way is a traitor". it's such immature, assinine behavior. must be that whole alpha-male, macho bull**** you guys seems to eat up with a spoon, from your creepy infatuation with guys like john wayne and ronald reagan to all that faux-patriotic catchphrases like "these colors don't run". it's all masterbatory bull****.

Cherry picking? I supposedly miss one section of your entire post and I'm 'cherry picking'? You're really reaching aren't you?

'Getting serious' with diplomacy is really moot, we do have diplomatic efforts in the area, we've had several high ranking officials trying to hammer out something resembling common sense. Now short of taking each member hostage and forcing them to pass meaningful legislation, it's out of our hands. As I clearly stated in the previous post, we've done all we can on our end, we are NOT accountable for what the Iraqi government decides not to do.

'Take the fight to Al-Queda'. Hmmmmm, I could be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure we're already in the process of doing that and successfully. Our troops have been in the trenches and pushing them back and now we have the assistance of tribal leaders in the area thanks to General Petraeus' quick 360 degree thinking on the ground. We've been able to forge alliances and we've made strides in that area, just as we have in Iraq.

Obviously I can't tell you what Party you should be supporting, I can however point out your gross misconceptions, delusions, and inconsistencies with your current stance. As to supporting a Party that'll stay there for a 100 years or one who's strategy consists of removing our troops from the battlefield, well personally I'd say the Party that's going to do whatever's necessary to finish the job that we started, not the one that'll simply leave it in the laps of the Iraqi people because 'we're tired, so we're taking our ball and going home. Have fun cleaning up after us.' Then again, I've never been one for intentional irresponsiblity.

You can try to dress it up anyway you want to but the fact of the matter is that in Darfur countrymen are killing countrymen based on reasons not so different than what we've seen in Iraq. One's gained an upper hand so I guess that makes a difference to those of your persuassion. Somehow the hyocrisy isn't surprising.

As to the last section that was basically a verbal tantrum choked full of generalizations and ill drawn conclusions, I won't bother. It's not cherry picking, it's just that my mental elevator doesn't go that low.

ok, well i guess that's too bad for you. i'm sick what the republican party stands for, so unless a republican actively separates himself from those policies and conduct, i'm more than happy to generalize at this point. but why do you care? you said both sides play the same games, so obviously you're aware of how ****ty your party can be.

Heh, classic. First it's 'I don't like generalizations' then it's 'Well I didn't mean ALL of them' now it's 'I'm pissed so **** it, it's alright if I do it.'. Flip Flopping, hypocritical BS. Don't whine to me about 'the Republican Party' generalizes using Liberal when you turn around with this type of tripe.

But you're right, I do see fault on both sides, you on the other hand pound the Democratic Party line and anyone else who even thinks about defending the Republicans must be a brain washed, macho jerk.

Pfffffffft.:o

ah, more rhetoric. yeah, that's great that your leaders can make false claims that going into the war we'd have no trouble removing saddam, installing a democracy and then sitting on our laurels while scrapbooking all the flowers that we were showered with by the iraqis just weeks after we invaded. that's a nice little fairy tale, but none of it turned out like that, and now you guys are changing your tune, since you can't fall back on those lies anymore. "ignore the man behind the curtain. he doesn't exist." nice way to change the subject. it's gone from, "this'll be a piece of cake" to "rome wasn't built in a day". oh, and tell me about the support we're getting from the over 2 million refugees who've fled iraq. or the family members of the hundreds of thousands iraqi's who've died since we invaded. i'm sure they'd take solace in your cute little catch phrases like "retreat isn't a strategy".

What can I say, I'm a wordsmith. Contrary to what you seem to think, I don't have an encylopedia of 'buzzwords' and slogans, I'm simply speaking from my point of view. I'd apologize for my choice of words hurting your sensitive sense of self, but I really don't feel it's necessary.

As to the casualties, you obviously didn't read my last post. With war come casualties on BOTH sides. Did you honestly think it would be just US bleeding? How naive. I'd tell the Iraqis that have lost loved ones the same thing I'd tell anyone with family serving. Whether they take solace in those words or not isn't my problem, it's a personal issue.

But you can ignore them, call them simple buzzwords, ignore anything that doesn't coincide with your warped point of view. We did depose Saddam and we did take the capital in a relatively short amount of time, now the process of securing our gains and rebuilding an infastructure and government that was corrupt before we ever invaded is something completely different. Like it or not, this isn't a microwave dinner and it doesn't work on YOUR time.

it was republicans who pushed for this war. it was republicans who cherry-picked intel or just plain made it up and presented it as hard and fast proof. it was republicans who defended their president when things were obviously going down the crapper. it was republicans who outted a covert cia agent who specialized in the field of nuclear proliferation while we were making a case for war against a country we accused of having nukes. it was the republicans who fought oversight on the reconstruction or iraq that resulted in all those failed no-bid contracts and allowed private militias like blackwater to run roughshod over the country with no adherence to anybody's laws. it was the republicans who declared "mission accomplished" three weeks after the war started. should i go on?

There were members from both Parties that went along with this war. It was the intelligence community as well as both members of each Party that have a hand in the bad intel. The Republican Party did and should defend their President, people should not be abandoned for making mistakes, especially when they earnestly attempt to correct them. Val's case was indeed a screw up, but there is no evidence that it was intentional. Oversight? You mean politically charged posturing that would have resulted in nothing being done. Our initial mission of deposing Saddam and taking the Capital was indeed Accomplished.

Please do.

i didn't say "leave them under the caring wings of iran and syria". i said we should try and get them involved in the diplomatic process and the war on terrorism. we had tons of support from the international community after 9/11. even iran offered their support, but bush squandered that by adding them to the axis of evil. why wouldn't those countries want peace in their region. it hurts them too if they're embroiled in a fullscale war. do you think things are just magically going to get better there without any sort of meaningful diplomacy?

You didn't say it, you implied it. As if getting them involved would someone equal up to a solution as to a U.S. presence. Iran isn't an ally and it's views are in direct contradiction with the U.S. so of course they weren't welcomed into the discussion for a nation that they stand to gain more by watching it dwindle into chaos. They offered as a political red herring, nothing more. They stand to gain much more from chaos, where they can then step in and assert their own power over the region. To think anything else is truly naive.

SuBe

02-12-2008, 05:02 PM

PWNED. I'd Say you and I are on the Same side Gen1.0.

Genesis 1.0

02-12-2008, 05:18 PM

As to your claims that I don't think we need diplomacy, it's absolutely wrong. I've already said that we need to follow up the millitary success with advances on the government's end.

nice, just ignore your mistakes. that's what got us into this **** in the first place. we ignored our mistakes in wars like vietnam and did the same damn thing with iraq. i wonder how quick you would be to change the subject on all those mistakes if they had been made by a democratic president? more sporting analogies. is someone pulling your string? you should work for a conservative bumper sticker manufacturer. you're coming up with some doozies.

Ignore our mistakes? Are you daft? This isn't even comprable to 'Nam except for the fact that the American public has weakened, just as it did then. This war was far better executed and has far more gains that Vietnam ever did. Democratic President or Republican, it makes no difference.

Sporting analogies? I do happen to be an avid sports fan but it has nothing to do with my political views. As a matter of fact, I've never heard 'retreat' or anything like it in any of the sports I watch, so i fail to see the comparison. So no, there's no one pulling my strings, but if you want to make the claim, I'd say there's definitely someone's hand up your back from the Move On crowd.

On a last note, I thank you for complimenting me on my word usage, it's an honor. Maybe I will get into the bumper sticker business, especially if someone as vehemetly opposed to me as you are, thinks I should.

[quote=sinewave]the old, "you can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs" excuse? when that many people are dead and that many lives have been ruined by something we started, something that had absolutely nothing to do with our "war on terror", i have a hard time accepting that pithy excuse.

.......Yeah, that's what happens, nations start wars, they don't just pop up on their own. Those lives weren't ruined by us, however, they were ruined by those who choose to send suicide bombers into crowded streets to prove a point. Those lives are ruined by people who would strap bombs to the mentally retarded or recruit kids to do their dirty work. Their lives were ruined by corrupt politicans within their government who refuse to quit their squabbling in order to get their country running and protect it's people. Don't get it twisted.

You know, somehow, I think that the jihadist we've engaged, defeated, and still battle in Iraq had something to do with 9/11. It's just a hunch but I'm pretty sure I've seen that same mentality before, if I could only remember where.

yes, i've tried getting an entire country's infrastructure fixed. who hasn't? :whatever:

Alrighty then, let's just clear up your confusion then: It's not as easy as plugging it into a socket.

what happened to all the progress we were making? we've sunk billions of dollars into the reconstruction of iraq, and 5 years later, which is a long time, regardless of what you think, more people are without power now than at any point in saddam's reign of power. they're in a medical crisis since a majority of their medical professionals have fled the country due to the violence. they're in a ****ty situation, but according to bush, there's progress being made. well not fast enough. meanwhile companies like haliburton continue to rake in our tax dollars for ****ing up their duties. way to go! it's funny, you're impatient with the iraqi government for not taking control of their country, but you give ours a free pass for all the delays and ****ups with the reconstruction.

What happened to the progress? What are you talking about? We're have made and continue to make progress. Instead of comparing it to Saddam's run, try comparing it to the days after we first took the capital to now, which would, I don't know, actually measure the progress WE'VE made since then.

When you finally said 'progress is being made, but not fast enough' you fullfiled what I've been saying about you and a large chunk of our nation. If it's not instant, if it's not within what YOU see as reasonable, then it's not right. 5 years is NOT alot of time to rebuild a country inside out. Sorry. The Bush Administration has done the RIGHT thing by listening to the commanders on the ground, NOT politicans pandering for election. They're in charge, they're fighting this war, let them decide what needs to be done.

For your information, I've never given Haliburton a free pass. I've stated more times than I care to count that there have been screw ups on BOTH sides of the coin. Period. However, the burden of the Iraqi people, the safety of the Iraqi people, and the spirit of the Iraqi people's freedom and rights lay in the palms of the Iraqi government, not Haliburton. Place the lion's share of the blame where it's due. It doesn't mean there isn't more to go around.

just curious, how long to you see this surge lasting? if this fight is so important to iraq's future democracy, the stability of the middle-east and our safety here in the states, why didn't we just re-instate the draft and hit them with everything we have? if it's the biggest fight of our lifetimes why didn't we go all-in? why did general shinseki get fired for suggesting we needed more troops on the ground when we entered iraq? why does the bush administration get the benefit of the doubt after all their, as you put it in an earlier post "perceived wrongs"? so many questions, so little time.

The surge as a millitary effort cannot be sustained as it is. Simple answer to a convoluted question. As to the Draft, it's pretty clear that attempting to enact a Draft would have simply caused more problems than it would have solved. Not to mention the fact that it would have given the Democratic Party's more undesirable members the opening they need to try and end this war even more quickly than they have. All this civil liberty jargon over what's happening now, enacting a Draft would have multiplied anything you see now. A wise aversion by the Administration.

Saying we needed more troops on the ground from the start was seen as unnecessary, and as with everything that progresses, views tend to change. Hindsight is a wonderful thing but not very useful when you're looking for an answer for something that's right in front of you then and there.

The Bush Administration has been and will continue to get the benefit of the doubt because he's human. He's made mistakes and now instead of taking his ball and going home, quitting on a job halfway through, he's instead dedicated himself to correcting it as best he can. THAT'S why he still has a 70% approval rating with Republicans. THAT'S why he's the Most Admired Man in America in a Poll taken from the American people. The man has endured more negativity, second guessing, and all around hate and continues to stand his ground. People make mistakes, their legacies are defined by what they do about them.

More than likely, he too will be vindicated by history, like Truman, Reagan, and Lincoln. Truman left office with a 24% approval rating and in the passing years has been recognized as one of the most influential presidents in history. Hate him and the Republican Party all you want, it won't shift reality into what you want it to be.

Genesis 1.0

02-12-2008, 05:20 PM

Damn, do you guys have cliff notes for those posts....

Unfortunately no, but we will have copies available in vinyl and cassette.:o

PWNED. I'd Say you and I are on the Same side Gen1.0.

Heh, This is fun.

Golgo-13

02-12-2008, 07:03 PM

S_H_F_4839

02-13-2008, 12:35 AM

:huh: :huh: What has he flip flopped on.....??? the only thing that he has not stood strong on is...

1. Secure borders first before any type of amnesty...
2. Make tax cuts permanent...

What else has he flip flopped on?

Romni was the flip flopper, and I'm sorry, but next to political flipping in the dictionary is Kerry.....:o

I was just posting something, I am not really informed on the issue, I mean sure if huckabee got it I would probably vote for him just because of state relation, but how is that any different than the blacks that vote for obama because he is or the women that vote for hilary because she is a woman.

StorminNorman

02-13-2008, 04:15 AM

Huckabee?

You act like he HAS a shot at winning.

Nivek

02-13-2008, 05:01 AM

You act like he HAS a shot at winning.

Hey, I never thought that creationism would make a come back as being a supposed scientific alternative in taxpayer funded public schools, but it has. Dont count out crazy religious zealots, thats how we got this current mess in the White House, and they continue to miss the Constitutional point of "seperation of church and state" in our goverment.

But I believe Obama is going to be THE guy. He's swaying so many people in states that just 40 years ago would never carry a minority candidate.

Nivek

02-13-2008, 05:08 AM

that's not being taken out of context at all. it's no secret that the fundamentalist muslim community has a problem with western influence and occupation of their region. bin laden has said as much before. keeping a permanent presence in iraq is a hell of a lot different than having a presence in other westernized countries like germany. there's no way in hell our troops wouldn't to be a target in that region, were a permanent base established, like it appears is happening. it'll just be used as a recruiting tool for the jihadists to get the evil infidels out of their holy land. why is that so hard to understand for republicans?

I agree, it's like they dont understand simple regional history and that it's a culture that has violently resisted occupation/western influence for 2,000 years.
Every military power in the world has given it a shot, and they all eventually fall short.

StorminNorman

02-13-2008, 05:14 AM

Hey, I never thought that creationism would make a come back as being a supposed scientific alternative in taxpayer funded public schools, but it has. Dont count out crazy religious zealots, thats how we got this current mess in the White House, and they continue to miss the Constitutional point of "seperation of church and state" in our goverment.

But I believe Obama is going to be THE guy. He's swaying so many democrats in states that just 40 years ago would never carry a minority candidate.

Obama, like Clinton, is perhaps too liberal to win.

If Obama wins the nomination - kiss away the southern states, the mid western states and probably Missouri and Ohio.

S_H_F_4839

02-13-2008, 05:15 AM

I may be the exception, but I am a southern voter, and if obama goes up against mccain the way its looking I am voting obama.

SuBe

02-13-2008, 08:38 AM

Hey, I never thought that creationism would make a come back as being a supposed scientific alternative in taxpayer funded public schools, but it has. Dont count out crazy religious zealots, thats how we got this current mess in the White House, and they continue to miss the Constitutional point of "seperation of church and state" in our goverment.

But I believe Obama is going to be THE guy. He's swaying so many people in states that just 40 years ago would never carry a minority candidate.
There is no "Seperation of Church and State" in the Constitution". Read it.

sinewave

02-13-2008, 09:47 AM

sinewave

02-13-2008, 11:33 AM

i'm gonna have to tackle this in increments or i'll never get to any of it.

It addressed the point, just not in the light you wanted it in. Ah but to your question of why even Democrats won't take up that mantle, it's false. There are several other members within the Democratic Party that have referred to themselves and their Party as Liberal.

no, it didn't address my point. i'm really sick of having to re-explain things to you over and over again, but here goes. you tried to show that the term "conservative" has just as bad a connotation as the term "liberal", but only when it's applied to someone who's actually on the opposite end of the spectrum (calling clinton a "conservative"). that's nothing like an entire party (the dems) distancing itself from a blanket term (liberal) that's used by the opposition (republicans) that actually does describe certain members of the other party (the dems). you don't get that on the other side. dems usually stick to using terms that describe the extremists members of the republican party, like "neo-cons" or "bible-thumpers" when referring to their extremists. you don't hear "conservative" being used as a blanket insult nearly as much as on the other side, though. can you give me some names of currently serving dems who have embraced the term "liberal"? i've already mentioned kucinich. got anymore?

The simple fact that your own Party is too afraid to take up a title that some Democrats on the grass roots level wouldn't mind seeing is that just like other political terms, Liberal has negative connotations. Not just because of Republican members, hate to burst your bubble, but because of the types of people that have subscribed to the title. Liberals and Hippies were synonomous in the late 60's and throughout the 70's. Liberal policies are not in tune with the American public.

uh-huh. what is it with you and fear? i know tons of conservatives love playing the fear card, but does everything revolve around that? i guess since you've proven you're one of the remaining 30% of the country that'll still bend over backwards to support the knuckleheads in the whitehouse, you've decided to adopt their gameplan, too. and you know what is in tune with the american public? do you think ultra-conservatism is? any idea why the dems won the house and the senate in '06, or why both democratic frontrunners are out-polling the republican nominee? could it be that maybe, just maybe the american people have seen the kind of **** the republicans have brought down on us while they're running things and they don't like it? nah, it's probably all the fault of those wussy liberals who caused all the problems. after all, the republicans are strong and tough and all that other moronic bull**** you guys love to pretend you are.

The people have entire teams taking Polls and getting information about what they think the public wants to hear. If the term liberal was in step with the mood of the American public, they'd be using it but it's not. The simple fact of the matter is that most Americans wouldn't describe themselves as Liberal, bottom line.

hmmm, still not getting it, i see. yeah, the term "liberal" doesn't poll well and that's why the dems won't use it. i see. and that has absolutely nothing to do with a coordinated campaign by the republican party (who you admit has teams of people fine tuning their pr campaign) over the last 20 years or so? nah, that's just be one of those wacky conspiracy theories by us moonbats on the left, right? it's just a simple coincidence. do you really not see a correlation? ah, look who i'm asking. :whatever:

So don't thank the Republican Party for your Party's inability to grow a set and stand up and outside the shadow cast by these 'negative connotations'. Go send your complaints to your state's represenative.

"grow a set." how macho of you to question someone's manhood. we're all blown away by the level of testosterone in your system. let me guess, you drive a real big truck, right?

Fine with me, you're on the losing end of it.

brimming with confidence, eh? :whatever:

that's it for now. i'll try tackling the rest after lunch.

hippie_hunter

02-13-2008, 02:29 PM

There is no "Seperation of Church and State" in the Constitution". Read it.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Yet again you are the one that has failed to read their Constitution. The First Amendment prohibits the government from endorsing any religion or prohibiting a person from exercising their religious beliefs. Thereby separating church from the state or mosque from the state or synagogue from the state and so on.

Or lets go from the words of President Thomas Jefferson one of the Founding Fathers of this nation:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.

Or how about President James Madison, another Founding Father and Father of the Constitution and principal author of the document which is the supreme law of this land:

Strongly guarded . . . is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States," Madison wrote, and he declared, "practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government is essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States.

I got some more, how about some Supreme Court rulings which interprets the Constitution, who I believe are far more knowledgeable about Constitutional law than you are:

For a law to be considered constitutional under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, the law must have a legitimate secular purpose, must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion, and must not result in an excessive entanglement of government and religion.

government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion

The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.

Or maybe the Treaty of Tripoli

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

sinewave

02-13-2008, 02:45 PM

Cherry picking? I supposedly miss one section of your entire post and I'm 'cherry picking'? You're really reaching aren't you?

a simple "sorry about that" would suffice.

'Getting serious' with diplomacy is really moot, we do have diplomatic efforts in the area, we've had several high ranking officials trying to hammer out something resembling common sense. Now short of taking each member hostage and forcing them to pass meaningful legislation, it's out of our hands. As I clearly stated in the previous post, we've done all we can on our end, we are NOT accountable for what the Iraqi government decides not to do.

apparently we're not doing enough on the diplomatic front, otherwise we'd be out of there. hopefully, there will come a point where we say "enough is enough". if the iraqis aren't capable to taking control of their country themselves, should we continue to sacrifice our troops and tax dollars while the figure their **** out or should we cut our loses and get the hell out. we've got enough of our own problems to deal with here at home. bush said it himself "we're not in the business of nation building".

'Take the fight to Al-Queda'. Hmmmmm, I could be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure we're already in the process of doing that and successfully. Our troops have been in the trenches and pushing them back and now we have the assistance of tribal leaders in the area thanks to General Petraeus' quick 360 degree thinking on the ground. We've been able to forge alliances and we've made strides in that area, just as we have in Iraq.

yeah, is that why bin laden was able to escape to pakistan and build up a stronghold there? whatever happened to "bringing him to justice"? whatever happened to your president's tough talk about taking him "dead or alive"? oh yeah, that was replaced with "i don't really think about him". i guess that went by the wayside when he bit off more than he could chew in iraq.

Obviously I can't tell you what Party you should be supporting, I can however point out your gross misconceptions, delusions, and inconsistencies with your current stance. As to supporting a Party that'll stay there for a 100 years or one who's strategy consists of removing our troops from the battlefield, well personally I'd say the Party that's going to do whatever's necessary to finish the job that we started, not the one that'll simply leave it in the laps of the Iraqi people because 'we're tired, so we're taking our ball and going home. Have fun cleaning up after us.' Then again, I've never been one for intentional irresponsiblity.

i see, so our intention going in was to free their people and make the country a better place? then what was all that talk about connections to al qaeda, WMDs or any other number of excuses we were given? if you party is so willing to do "whatever's necessary to finish the job we started", are you planning to join the military to go fight over there? how about all those young republican chickenhawks who've used deferments and any other excuse they can think of to avoid serving over there? it's all talk. you guys paint yourselves as the big, strong patriots "protecting our freedoms", but you come up with convenient excuses to avoid actually risking your lives for them, just like your president and vp did.

You can try to dress it up anyway you want to but the fact of the matter is that in Darfur countrymen are killing countrymen based on reasons not so different than what we've seen in Iraq. One's gained an upper hand so I guess that makes a difference to those of your persuassion. Somehow the hyocrisy isn't surprising.

not sure where you're going with this. when did i say they weren't fighting each other? if you want to call it a civil war, that's fine. i'm not gonna disagree.

As to the last section that was basically a verbal tantrum choked full of generalizations and ill drawn conclusions, I won't bother. It's not cherry picking, it's just that my mental elevator doesn't go that low.

i'd say yours goes down through several sub-basements if you're supporting these idiots still.

Heh, classic. First it's 'I don't like generalizations' then it's 'Well I didn't mean ALL of them' now it's 'I'm pissed so **** it, it's alright if I do it.'. Flip Flopping, hypocritical BS. Don't whine to me about 'the Republican Party' generalizes using Liberal when you turn around with this type of tripe.

annoying, isn't it? breaking out more republican buzz terms, eh? clever.

But you're right, I do see fault on both sides, you on the other hand pound the Democratic Party line and anyone else who even thinks about defending the Republicans must be a brain washed, macho jerk.

Pfffffffft.:o

nah, i've got plenty of beef with the dems in washington, but it's far overshadowed by the hatred i hold for the GOP. i'm just not going to put up your party's bull**** anymore, and that includes anyone who supports or votes for them.

What can I say, I'm a wordsmith. Contrary to what you seem to think, I don't have an encylopedia of 'buzzwords' and slogans, I'm simply speaking from my point of view. I'd apologize for my choice of words hurting your sensitive sense of self, but I really don't feel it's necessary.

it's uncanny how closely your rhetoric matches every other right-wing talking head on TV and every neo-con in washington. you know, those same nice folks who attacked war heroes like max cleland and john kerry. the same ones who accused michael j. fox of "faking" his parkinsons symptoms. the same people who made up lies about a kid and his family for having the gall to speak up for expanded health care for children. and yes, the same ones who accused the 9/11 widows of "enjoying their husbands' deaths so much.". nice bunch of people in your party. real salt-of-the-earth types.

As to the casualties, you obviously didn't read my last post. With war come casualties on BOTH sides. Did you honestly think it would be just US bleeding? How naive. I'd tell the Iraqis that have lost loved ones the same thing I'd tell anyone with family serving. Whether they take solace in those words or not isn't my problem, it's a personal issue.

what gave you the idea that i assumed only one side accrued casualties in a war? are you really so wrapped up in your own **** that you think something that basic would not occur to me? did you guys think much about it before we invaded? do you think cheney gave it much thought? he must have because back in 1994 he said that going into baghdad would lead to a "quagmire". what's changed since then? obviously nothing, but they went ahead with it anyway, knowing what the consequences were. brilliant decision making on their part. :whatever:

But you can ignore them, call them simple buzzwords, ignore anything that doesn't coincide with your warped point of view. We did depose Saddam and we did take the capital in a relatively short amount of time, now the process of securing our gains and rebuilding an infastructure and government that was corrupt before we ever invaded is something completely different. Like it or not, this isn't a microwave dinner and it doesn't work on YOUR time.

tell that to families of soldiers who've died over there while our government was working out the kinks on their failed policy. i'm sure they'd love to have you break it down for them with empty phrases like the one above.

There were members from both Parties that went along with this war. It was the intelligence community as well as both members of each Party that have a hand in the bad intel. The Republican Party did and should defend their President, people should not be abandoned for making mistakes, especially when they earnestly attempt to correct them. Val's case was indeed a screw up, but there is no evidence that it was intentional. Oversight? You mean politically charged posturing that would have resulted in nothing being done. Our initial mission of deposing Saddam and taking the Capital was indeed Accomplished.

Please do.

i fault whoever voted to use military force, but at the same time, i'm not naive enough to think that they were provided accurate intelligence. we've seen from the start that the bush administration worked extremely hard to "sell" this war to the american people.

"mistakes"? that's one of the most obnoxious things you've said so far. would you call it a mistake that bush continued to tell us that iraq was trying to acquire enriched uranium from niger even after the story had been disproven by the intelligence community and had been removed from his speeches several times, only to mysteriously end up back in them? was it a mistake cheney went on the news shows and said there was no doubt that iraqi officials had met with mohammed atta in europe prior to 9/11 even though it was disproven by the intelligence community? was it a mistake that british officials were quoted as saying the bush administration needed to "sell" the war to the american public? how about the italian documents that were proven to have been forged but the bush administration still defended? how about their informant "curveball" who told them what they wanted to hear about iraq's chemical weapons program, which ended up being lies? they cherry-picked, lied and bullied their way into getting that authorization to invade, all while our country was still reeling from 9/11 and trusted them to do the right thing. that's manipulation, plain and simple, and it's despicable.

You didn't say it, you implied it. As if getting them involved would someone equal up to a solution as to a U.S. presence. Iran isn't an ally and it's views are in direct contradiction with the U.S. so of course they weren't welcomed into the discussion for a nation that they stand to gain more by watching it dwindle into chaos. They offered as a political red herring, nothing more. They stand to gain much more from chaos, where they can then step in and assert their own power over the region. To think anything else is truly naive.

oh, so now you're an expert on what i'm "implying"? a mind reader, eh? what's it going to hurt if we bring them to the table, so to speak? outright shunning them from this process is not going to help matters. to use your brilliant tactic, "have you ever worked out a diplomatic agreement between middle eastern countries before?" these things aren't easy and if you automatically put yourself at a disadvantage by not pursuing all option on the diplomatic front, you're doing everyone a disservice. how can you say for sure it was a "political red herring"? need i remind you how wrong your party has been in this whole cluster****? iran offered their support and condolences after 9/11 and we spat on them and got all cowboy on their asses and labeled them "evil". nice use of diplomacy.

sinewave

02-13-2008, 04:07 PM

As to your claims that I don't think we need diplomacy, it's absolutely wrong. I've already said that we need to follow up the millitary success with advances on the government's end.

my apologies.

Ignore our mistakes? Are you daft? This isn't even comprable to 'Nam except for the fact that the American public has weakened, just as it did then. This war was far better executed and has far more gains that Vietnam ever did. Democratic President or Republican, it makes no difference.

nope, i'm not daft. are you brittish? it's not on the same scale as 'nam, but there certainly are similarities, mostly about both being unnecessary, costly and extremely unpopular wars. i like how you attribute losing that war to the "weakened american public". it had nothing to do with underestimating our enemy and biting off more than we could chew? if the republicans mislead their way into the iraq invasion and were orchestrating it and they screwed it up, how is that the american public's fault? you guys will say anything to shift the blame off your glorious leaders in washington. for a party who supposedly despises big government, you sure seem to have no problems supporting the expansion of the government's power, as long as your party is running things.

.......Yeah, that's what happens, nations start wars, they don't just pop up on their own. Those lives weren't ruined by us, however, they were ruined by those who choose to send suicide bombers into crowded streets to prove a point. Those lives are ruined by people who would strap bombs to the mentally retarded or recruit kids to do their dirty work. Their lives were ruined by corrupt politicans within their government who refuse to quit their squabbling in order to get their country running and protect it's people. Don't get it twisted.

You know, somehow, I think that the jihadist we've engaged, defeated, and still battle in Iraq had something to do with 9/11. It's just a hunch but I'm pretty sure I've seen that same mentality before, if I could only remember where.

war is supposed to be a last resort, not something you rush into based on questionable intelligence or to make a legacy for yourself. quick question, you say "Those lives weren't ruined by us". who invaded a sovereign nation, dismantled their government and military and allowed extremists to flood in and cause chaos? was that al qaeda? nope, don't think so. saddam was dick but he was very much against giving even an inch to the violent extremists in iraq. we caused that. us. if saddam were still in power they wouldn't have daily suicide bombings and sectarian violence. they wouldn't have millions of dead or displaced citizens.

at no point did i say we should not be going after al qaeda and those responsible for 9/11. however, recruiting has skyrocketed for them since we invaded iraq. that's a fact backed up by the national intelligence estimate. on top of that, we've allowed several of the masterminds behind it to escape to pakistan because we diverted our troops from afghanistan to iraq and outsourced the job of capturing them to afghan warlords who got paid off by bin laden to turn the other cheek and let them escape. another feather in bush and the republican's collective hats.

Alrighty then, let's just clear up your confusion then: It's not as easy as plugging it into a socket.

more groundbreaking revelations from the king of oversimplification.

What happened to the progress? What are you talking about? We're have made and continue to make progress. Instead of comparing it to Saddam's run, try comparing it to the days after we first took the capital to now, which would, I don't know, actually measure the progress WE'VE made since then.

oh, changing the rules again, huh? "don't compare it to the time before we invaded and ****ed everything up, compare it to a a worse situation so it will look like we're making progress." once again, very clever. :whatever:

When you finally said 'progress is being made, but not fast enough' you fullfiled what I've been saying about you and a large chunk of our nation. If it's not instant, if it's not within what YOU see as reasonable, then it's not right. 5 years is NOT alot of time to rebuild a country inside out. Sorry. The Bush Administration has done the RIGHT thing by listening to the commanders on the ground, NOT politicans pandering for election. They're in charge, they're fighting this war, let them decide what needs to be done.

did you not hear rumsfeld say it could last "six weeks or six months, but i doubt it"? we were sold on this war because it was suppose to be a quick and easy operation. now that it hasn't turned out like that, we're the ones who are in the wrong because we're so darned impatient. wah! i challenge you to find someone who's actually happy that it has gone on this long. why should we believe that bush is truly listening to his commanders on the ground when he fired anyone who disagreed their views?

For your information, I've never given Haliburton a free pass. I've stated more times than I care to count that there have been screw ups on BOTH sides of the coin. Period. However, the burden of the Iraqi people, the safety of the Iraqi people, and the spirit of the Iraqi people's freedom and rights lay in the palms of the Iraqi government, not Haliburton. Place the lion's share of the blame where it's due. It doesn't mean there isn't more to go around.

man, you love twisting my words. i'm not blaming haliburton for the safety or freedom of the iraqis, i'm blaming our government, you know the one that was run almost strictly by republicans until '06, for handing out a no-bid contract to the same company that the vp happened to run. is that not a conflict of interest? would it not be called "war profiteering" for haliburton to come up short on their deals with the government and still receive millions of tax dollars in bonuses? what about stories like the one about the haliburton-installed sewage pipes bursting and infecting the water supply in parts of iraq? sure sounds like a company that's worthy of multi-million dollar government contracts, and thanks to those lovely republicans, there's no oversight. why get in the way of an honest company like haliburton getting richer from a catastrophe orchestrated by their former ceo? "nothing to see here". :whatever:

The surge as a millitary effort cannot be sustained as it is. Simple answer to a convoluted question. As to the Draft, it's pretty clear that attempting to enact a Draft would have simply caused more problems than it would have solved. Not to mention the fact that it would have given the Democratic Party's more undesirable members the opening they need to try and end this war even more quickly than they have. All this civil liberty jargon over what's happening now, enacting a Draft would have multiplied anything you see now. A wise aversion by the Administration.

so what's the solution, then, if the surge can't be sustained? i guess, judging by your remarks about the draft, that the situation in iraq is bad enough that we need to win it or the terrorists win and we're all dress-wearing tulips, but it's not bad enough that we need to throw everything at it to ensure a victory. does that about sum it up? what if an attack were to occur stateside and the majority of our military is in the middle east, including a large number of reserves and national guard? do you not find it troubling that our military has been spread as thin as it has been due to the wars in iraq and afghanistan?

Saying we needed more troops on the ground from the start was seen as unnecessary, and as with everything that progresses, views tend to change. Hindsight is a wonderful thing but not very useful when you're looking for an answer for something that's right in front of you then and there.

and that's my point! the bush administration mismanaged this thing from the start and now we're supposed to give them or any of their apologists, such as yourself, the benefit of the doubt? how stupid do you think we are? the administration ignored all dissenting viewpoints and got rid of them. **** that "hindsight is 20/20" bull****. nobody takes him or his followers seriously anymore. any credibility this administration had with the public was used up a long time ago.

The Bush Administration has been and will continue to get the benefit of the doubt because he's human. He's made mistakes and now instead of taking his ball and going home, quitting on a job halfway through, he's instead dedicated himself to correcting it as best he can. THAT'S why he still has a 70% approval rating with Republicans. THAT'S why he's the Most Admired Man in America in a Poll taken from the American people. The man has endured more negativity, second guessing, and all around hate and continues to stand his ground. People make mistakes, their legacies are defined by what they do about them.

how noble of you. give the guy who made the biggest foreign policy blunder of the last 30 years a free pass because how could he have known things would go this badly? boo hoo. go ask cheney circa 1994 how this invasion worked out on paper. your 70% of the conservative base is only 30% of the american public. what was that you were saying about people not wanting a thing to do with liberalism? if that's your "most admired man in america" then that's about as close as we're going to get to proof of how ****ed in the head conservatives are. it's funny that you say "people make mistakes" but when asked about mistakes that he made early on in the war, he couldn't come up with anything aside from mistakes in the people he hire for certain positions, like nothing was his fault.

More than likely, he too will be vindicated by history, like Truman, Reagan, and Lincoln. Truman left office with a 24% approval rating and in the passing years has been recognized as one of the most influential presidents in history. Hate him and the Republican Party all you want, it won't shift reality into what you want it to be.

yeah, that'll be the day. reagan's only revered by conservatives. everyone else thinks he was a douche. he did help inspire a ton of good punk bands, though, so i guess he wasn't all bad. you crack me up with these comparisons. bush = lincoln? your version of reality doesn't exist outside of rush limbaugh's drug-addled gourd.

[SIZE=1]
Heh, This is fun.

damn straight it is.

i'm most likely done posting for the remainder of the day. if you respond today i'll get back to you tomorrow.

Genesis 1.0

02-13-2008, 04:53 PM

i'm gonna have to tackle this in increments or i'll never get to any of it.

Doesn't really matter.

no, it didn't address my point. i'm really sick of having to re-explain things to you over and over again, but here goes. you tried to show that the term "conservative" has just as bad a connotation as the term "liberal", but only when it's applied to someone who's actually on the opposite end of the spectrum (calling clinton a "conservative"). that's nothing like an entire party (the dems) distancing itself from a blanket term (liberal) that's used by the opposition (republicans) that actually does describe certain members of the other party (the dems). you don't get that on the other side. dems usually stick to using terms that describe the extremists members of the republican party, like "neo-cons" or "bible-thumpers" when referring to their extremists. you don't hear "conservative" being used as a blanket insult nearly as much as on the other side, though. can you give me some names of currently serving dems who have embraced the term "liberal"? i've already mentioned kucinich. got anymore?

What you should be tired of doing is missing the point...over and over and over again. I don't have to try and show you anything, just about any Democratic politican on the Hill would recoil at being called a Conservative. It's just as vile and contradictory to them as the word 'Liberal' the amount of times used means very little when the reaction is the same.

I don't know what's so hard for you to grasp, but your Party is afraid of that word because of what it infers, because it's not something that's going to win them anything. It's of no use to them to be seen as Liberal because in the world of politics is very much an extreme left point of view. Bottom line. All you've been arguing about for days is the fact that the Democratic Party doesn't have as many negative and imaginative titles as those on the extreme have been labeled with. If that makes sense to you, then good deal.

So you want a list of the Liberal cream of the crop that carry the title proudly aside from Kucinich?

Hillary Clinton (Senator - NY)
Howard Dean (Chairmen - DNC)
John Kerry (Senator - MA)
Edward Kennedy (Senator - MA)
Harry Reid (Senator - NV)
Nancy Pelosi (Congresswoman - CA)
Charles Rangel (Congressman - NY)
Dick Durbin (Senator - IL)
Robert Byrd (Senator - WV)
Barney Frank (Congressman - MA)
Dennis Kucinich (Congressman - OH)
Jim McDermott (Congressman - WA)
Patrick Leahy (Senator - Vermont)
Joe Biden (Senator - DE)
Barbara Boxer (Senator - CA)
Dianne Feinstein (Senator - CA)
Patty Murray (Senator - WA)
Cynthia McKinney (Congresswoman - GA)
Marcy Kaptur (Congresswoman - OH)
Charles Shumer (Senator - NY)
Sheldon Silver (Assemblyman - NY)
Mike Thompson (Congressman - CA)
Barbara Mikulski (Senator - MD)
Gavin Newsom (Mayor- San Francisco)
Jason West (Mayor of New Paltz, NY)Just let me know if I need to keep going.

[quote=sinewave]uh-huh. what is it with you and fear? i know tons of conservatives love playing the fear card, but does everything revolve around that? i guess since you've proven you're one of the remaining 30% of the country that'll still bend over backwards to support the knuckleheads in the whitehouse, you've decided to adopt their gameplan, too. and you know what is in tune with the american public? do you think ultra-conservatism is? any idea why the dems won the house and the senate in '06, or why both democratic frontrunners are out-polling the republican nominee? could it be that maybe, just maybe the american people have seen the kind of **** the republicans have brought down on us while they're running things and they don't like it? nah, it's probably all the fault of those wussy liberals who caused all the problems. after all, the republicans are strong and tough and all that other moronic bull**** you guys love to pretend you are.

What do I fear? Wasting more time trying to teach common sense, trying to show that there's just as much wrong with one side as the other to someone seemingly incapable of grasping basic facts. I fear having to repeat the same facts over and over again and getting the equivalent of a 'Huh?' from you. THAT'S what I fear and guess what? I'm living the nightmare baby.

30%? Must be the same 30% that made him the Most Admired Man in America according to the public. Must be apart of the 70% of Republicans that support the President. I guess it's that 30%. Dunno. But what I do know is that while you're rambling on about numbers, you should look at YOUR Democratic Congress' numbers, which happen to be below that of the 'knucklehead led' White House. Come now, if we're going to play numbers, let's play them all. Your Party's just as screwy as you claim mine is and according to the public, your's happens to be a bit worse. Mixed signals, anyone?

So if ultra-conservatism as you put it isn't pulling it, then a 'liberal' Democratic led Hill isn't either.

But yeah, I'm gonna go do some of that macho stuff we 'guys' do. Drink a Red Bull, lift some weights, demean some women, watch Rambo 200 times, and buff my awesome pecs.

RIGHT ON!:cmad:

hmmm, still not getting it, i see. yeah, the term "liberal" doesn't poll well and that's why the dems won't use it. i see. and that has absolutely nothing to do with a coordinated campaign by the republican party (who you admit has teams of people fine tuning their pr campaign) over the last 20 years or so? nah, that's just be one of those wacky conspiracy theories by us moonbats on the left, right? it's just a simple coincidence. do you really not see a correlation? ah, look who i'm asking. :whatever:

It doesn't Poll well because it's extreme left wing idealism, just like neo-con wouldn't poll well. I mean really, what about this don't you get? The poor horse has been beaten to death ten times over now you're still on Square 1.

It's always someone else's fault that your Party can't claim a mantle, or that they can't get a Bill passed, or that they can't deliver on what they promise. It's always someone else's fault and that somebody always tends to be the Republicans. You've got a severe case of Political Victim Syndrome, you need help and fast my friend, your paranoia has gotten out of hand.

"grow a set." how macho of you to question someone's manhood. we're all blown away by the level of testosterone in your system. let me guess, you drive a real big truck, right?

It's a term, but I won't bother defending it or pointing out some of your own that reflect just as oddly, because you'll deny them without a doubt. Gotta tell you, you really seem to be reaching for ANYTHING to take offense to, kinda like arguing with a young child. You can only say so much before someone's feelings get hurt.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Genesis 1.0 http://forums.superherohype.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?p=14047846#post14047846)
Fine with me, you're on the losing end of it.

brimming with confidence, eh? :whatever:

Okay, so let me get this straight: I'm not supposed to act as if I have a spine in the face of this verbal onslaught of slanted views AND I'm not supposed to be confident in my prespective?

It's too much I tell ya! Too much!:csad:

Kelly

02-13-2008, 05:27 PM

There is no "Seperation of Church and State" in the Constitution". Read it.

Theres no "Right to Privacy" or "Right to a fair trial" :yay:

The amendments that these are derived from are simply written to set up the conditions for those things to happen......as is the First Amendment.....

The first amendment doesn't say anythting about "religious liberty" either, but it definitely protects it.......as it does the government having a hand in religion, hence the statement, "separation of church and state"....

Arc-Light

02-13-2008, 05:44 PM

" we leave them high and dry " can you Vietnam.......there is absolutely nothing anyone can say to justify a reason to still be in Iraq......nothing.

sinewave

02-13-2008, 05:49 PM

i know i said i wouldn't respond tonight, but i've got some time to kill before i leave work and might as well get to it.

can you please learn to edit your posts so my quotes don't get mixed in with yours?

What you should be tired of doing is missing the point...over and over and over again. I don't have to try and show you anything, just about any Democratic politican on the Hill would recoil at being called a Conservative. It's just as vile and contradictory to them as the word 'Liberal' the amount of times used means very little when the reaction is the same.

goddamn, you're thick, dude. this got old a long time ago, so this is it for me for this particular topic. get it right now or just ****ing drop it. your analogy of labeling one's opponent with a term that's the complete opposite of their make up is ****ing retarded. of course someone's going to get annoyed if you call a smart person dumb or a republican a liberal. that's like some kind of 3rd grade reverse psychology and is not even the point. we're talking about the misuse of a word that does sum up a small portion of it's target, but has been distorted through that misuse as a catchall negative term for the entire party, not the more extreme members. is that simple enough for you? it has nothing with democratic party being weak and unable to embrace it. it's past the point of being embraced because it's been misused and republicanized over the last 20 years to mean something like "weak, god-less pussies" to the ears of conservatives. the same cannot be said for the standard term of "conservative" because usually if a democrat is attacking a republican extremist, they'll use a term that better differentiates them from the rest of their party, like "neo-cons". there. i can't say it any more plainly than that.

I don't know what's so hard for you to grasp, but your Party is afraid of that word because of what it infers, because it's not something that's going to win them anything. It's of no use to them to be seen as Liberal because in the world of politics is very much an extreme left point of view. Bottom line. All you've been arguing about for days is the fact that the Democratic Party doesn't have as many negative and imaginative titles as those on the extreme have been labeled with. If that makes sense to you, then good deal.

So you want a list of the Liberal cream of the crop that carry the title proudly aside from Kucinich?

Hillary Clinton (Senator - NY)
Howard Dean (Chairmen - DNC)
John Kerry (Senator - MA)
Edward Kennedy (Senator - MA)
Harry Reid (Senator - NV)
Nancy Pelosi (Congresswoman - CA)
Charles Rangel (Congressman - NY)
Dick Durbin (Senator - IL)
Robert Byrd (Senator - WV)
Barney Frank (Congressman - MA)
Dennis Kucinich (Congressman - OH)
Jim McDermott (Congressman - WA)
Patrick Leahy (Senator - Vermont)
Joe Biden (Senator - DE)
Barbara Boxer (Senator - CA)
Dianne Feinstein (Senator - CA)
Patty Murray (Senator - WA)
Cynthia McKinney (Congresswoman - GA)
Marcy Kaptur (Congresswoman - OH)
Charles Shumer (Senator - NY)
Sheldon Silver (Assemblyman - NY)
Mike Thompson (Congressman - CA)
Barbara Mikulski (Senator - MD)
Gavin Newsom (Mayor- San Francisco)
Jason West (Mayor of New Paltz, NY)Just let me know if I need to keep going.

how exactly does that list illustrate your point that those people refer to themselves as "liberals" to the public? just because they're on a list of liberal voting records, doesn't mean those on the list embrace the term. keep trying though. it's like watching a monkey try to **** a football.

What do I fear? Wasting more time trying to teach common sense, trying to show that there's just as much wrong with one side as the other to someone seemingly incapable of grasping basic facts. I fear having to repeat the same facts over and over again and getting the equivalent of a 'Huh?' from you. THAT'S what I fear and guess what? I'm living the nightmare baby.

you mean you don't fear the "terrurists" like your fearless leader tells you? better get in line, kid. the republican leaders only like people who submit to total authoritarian rule. no others need apply.

30%? Must be the same 30% that made him the Most Admired Man in America according to the public. Must be apart of the 70% of Republicans that support the President. I guess it's that 30%. Dunno. But what I do know is that while you're rambling on about numbers, you should look at YOUR Democratic Congress' numbers, which happen to be below that of the 'knucklehead led' White House. Come now, if we're going to play numbers, let's play them all. Your Party's just as screwy as you claim mine is and according to the public, your's happens to be a bit worse. Mixed signals, anyone?

yes, he's got a 30% approval rating. look it up. nice way to change the subject. "forget about bush, let's look at congress' poll numbers." congress's ratings are historically very low (democrats and republicans), even lower than bush's, usually. doesn't mean much to me, but i'm sure there's a lot of pissed off voters who thought they'd follow through on their promises to bring the troops home by now, but that was never realistic in the first place.

So if ultra-conservatism as you put it isn't pulling it, then a 'liberal' Democratic led Hill isn't either.

It doesn't Poll well because it's extreme left wing idealism, just like neo-con wouldn't poll well. I mean really, what about this don't you get? The poor horse has been beaten to death ten times over now you're still on Square 1.

at this point, i'd take a true moderate from either party compared to more of this crap. a liberal would be fine. they can't be any worse than the conservatives and it'd be worth it to piss off the republican party and their pundits. neo-cons got their shot and ****ed up the image of their party for what's probably going to last a while.

It's always someone else's fault that your Party can't claim a mantle, or that they can't get a Bill passed, or that they can't deliver on what they promise. It's always someone else's fault and that somebody always tends to be the Republicans. You've got a severe case of Political Victim Syndrome, you need help and fast my friend, your paranoia has gotten out of hand.

this from the party that still tries to blame bill clinton for half of the problems in this country. nice try, but you guys invented hypocrisy.

It's a term, but I won't bother defending it or pointing out some of your own that reflect just as oddly, because you'll deny them without a doubt. Gotta tell you, you really seem to be reaching for ANYTHING to take offense to, kinda like arguing with a young child. You can only say so much before someone's feelings get hurt.

i've heard the term before, that wasn't the point. it's just more of the same from the party of alpha-male mongoloids. no skin off my back.

Okay, so let me get this straight: I'm not supposed to act as if I have a spine in the face of this verbal onslaught of slanted views AND I'm not supposed to be confident in my prespective?

It's too much I tell ya! Too much!:csad:

nah, just giving you ****. take from that what you will.

Genesis 1.0

02-13-2008, 06:11 PM

a simple "sorry about that" would suffice.

Like Hell, I refuse to apologize for YOU reaching. Unless you plan to blame that on myself and the Republican Party as well.

apparently we're not doing enough on the diplomatic front, otherwise we'd be out of there. hopefully, there will come a point where we say "enough is enough". if the iraqis aren't capable to taking control of their country themselves, should we continue to sacrifice our troops and tax dollars while the figure their **** out or should we cut our loses and get the hell out. we've got enough of our own problems to deal with here at home. bush said it himself "we're not in the business of nation building".

We're not nation building, we're helping REBUILD a nation that had a corrupt government and leader before we ever entered. This isn't building something from the ground up, we're simply helping the Iraqi people straighten out the framework so that a government that allows ALL of it's people to participate can flourish. We're helping to fix some of the things that were destroyed by our actions and helping with the growth of another beacon of hope in a region populated by corruption and tyranny. It's a fact, not a slogan.

It's called responsibility, we teach it to our children and the hell if those leading our nation should adopt a policy that shows a callous disregard for our responsibilities abroad. With any amount of power there comes an equal amount of responsibility, the United States has never been one to sit on their hands whenever there is wrongdoing or a threat looming so why should we stop that now?

We helped put them here, we should not simply leave them to foot the bill.

yeah, is that why bin laden was able to escape to pakistan and build up a stronghold there? whatever happened to "bringing him to justice"? whatever happened to your president's tough talk about taking him "dead or alive"? oh yeah, that was replaced with "i don't really think about him". i guess that went by the wayside when he bit off more than he could chew in iraq.

The man's elusive, pursuing the War on Terror, continuing the pressure in Afghanistan, none of these things guarantee the immediate or timely capture of Bin Laden. No matter how many bomb runs or men you put on the ground, you can't catch someone like that with those elements alone. You need intel, correct intel, you need to forge the alliances that our men have on the ground in the tribal regions. We've been working on it, like anything done by man, it could be done better, but that can't be helped at the moment. There is no lack of effort on the part of the U.S. millitary or in the policy of the Bush Administration. By your own logic, strange as it is, finding him would be a top priority for them as well. An immediate means of vindication to some degree, so don't try sliding that crap about Bush not trying hard enough.

Odd as it may be to you, rebuilding Iraw takes presidence over finding a single man, as dangerous and heinous as he may be. We're battling his followers and trying to find him AND helping Iraq recover. Neither has been neglected.

i see, so our intention going in was to free their people and make the country a better place? then what was all that talk about connections to al qaeda, WMDs or any other number of excuses we were given? if you party is so willing to do "whatever's necessary to finish the job we started", are you planning to join the military to go fight over there? how about all those young republican chickenhawks who've used deferments and any other excuse they can think of to avoid serving over there? it's all talk. you guys paint yourselves as the big, strong patriots "protecting our freedoms", but you come up with convenient excuses to avoid actually risking your lives for them, just like your president and vp did.

Oh so if you aren't on the ground, then your opinion doesn't matter, it's all a smokescreen? You're a hypocrite because if that was the case, if you were truly so predicated on the members of the American millitary then you'd actually listen to the commanders on the ground! You'd listen when they said it's going to take more time and a greater committment to the war. But you don't. You dismiss them like you dismiss anything that doesn't agree with your point of view, so please, spare me.

The fact of the matter is that war requires 2 things: Those who will fight on the ground and those who will fight in the public arena. Neither can survive without the other. We need the troops to forge ahead and follow the initiatives set by those back home. We need those fighting in the public arena to stand fast and hold their ground in the face of those that would withdraw our troops and make their efforts for nothing. You can't have one without the other, so again you've overreached yourself and completely cheapened any possible point you hoped to make with that notoriously weak argument.

not sure where you're going with this. when did i say they weren't fighting each other? if you want to call it a civil war, that's fine. i'm not gonna disagree.

Okay then, why is that there's such an out pouring for one and not the other? Can it be that your level and that of the public depends on how much American blood and money is spent in the process? Classical selfish behavior from this 'Gimme' generation. It's good to be sympathetic, just as long as it's far away and not bothering you personally. Pffffft.

i'd say yours goes down through several sub-basements if you're supporting these idiots still.

With such overhwhelming logic and finesse such as this, how can I possibly defend myself?

Oh my.:o

annoying, isn't it? breaking out more republican buzz terms, eh? clever.

Some time soon you'll realize that they're not buzzwords, they're simple truths. Proper comparison that just happens to be catchy because I happen to be good with words. Hell, you've already recommened and recognized my talent for such, why backpeddle now?

nah, i've got plenty of beef with the dems in washington, but it's far overshadowed by the hatred i hold for the GOP. i'm just not going to put up your party's bull**** anymore, and that includes anyone who supports or votes for them.

YOU have problems with the Democratic Party? Well this is the first I've heard of it since this started.

The hatred you hold for the GOP, better yet and more accurately, BLIND hatred. Somehow you seem to hold this moronic belief that partisanship overcomes partisanship and the best way to solve things is with, you guessed it, partisanship.

Somehow you've managed to convince yourself that your support of anything NOT Republican is somehow better than the plauges that afflict Washington today. It's more than hypocrisy, that's just ignorant. To be honest, that just disqualifies any notion of unbiased or factual debate since it's all clearly slanted one way. Pathetic.

it's uncanny how closely your rhetoric matches every other right-wing talking head on TV and every neo-con in washington. you know, those same nice folks who attacked war heroes like max cleland and john kerry. the same ones who accused michael j. fox of "faking" his parkinsons symptoms. the same people who made up lies about a kid and his family for having the gall to speak up for expanded health care for children. and yes, the same ones who accused the 9/11 widows of "enjoying their husbands' deaths so much.". nice bunch of people in your party. real salt-of-the-earth types.

How nice of you to remind us all of the extreme right wing while clearly forgetting to include that there's another portion of it that's alot less combative and socially vulgar. But hell, since we're throwing around extreme quotes from Party Past, let's continue with the guys and gals from YOUR'S, 'eh?

Ben Afleck "It’s hard for me to have a respect (sic) for a guy who never held a job until he was 40."

Or Jonathan Alter "We’re seeing clearly now that Bush thought 9/11 gave him license to act like a dictator, or in his own mind, no doubt, like Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War....If the Democrats regain control of Congress, there may even be articles of impeachment introduced. Similar abuse of power was part of the impeachment charge brought against Richard Nixon in 1974."

Jennifer Anniston "Bush is a f***ing idiot!"

Ed Asner "Hannity's next. We're going after him just like we went after Limbaugh."

Alec Baldwin "Cheney is a terrorist. He terrorizes our enemies abroad and innocent citizens here at home indiscriminately. Who ever thought Harry Whittington would be the answer to America’s prayers. Finally, someone who might get that lying, thieving Cheney into a courtroom to answer some direct questions."

"...(following the impeechment of Clinton) all of us together would go down to Washington and we would stone Henry Hyde to death! We would stone him to death! Wait! Shut up! Shut up! No shut up! I’m not finished. We would stone Henry Hyde to death and we would go to their homes and we’d kill their wives and their children. We would kill their families."

Harry Belafonte on Colin Powell "There's an old saying, in the days of slavery, there were those slaves who lived on the plantation and were those slaves that lived in the house. You got the privilege of living in the house if you served the master exactly the way the master intended to have you serve him. Colin Powell's committed to come into the house of the master. When Colin Powell dares to suggest something other than what the master wants to hear, he will be turned back out to pasture."

SENATOR ROBERT BYRD: "There are white n***ers. I've seen a lot of white n***ers in my time. I'm going to use that word."

"The Klan (Ku Klux Klan which he was a member of) is needed today as never before and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia."

"(I will never fight) with a Negro by my side. Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds."

I'll stop there, but suffice it to say I can pull up as many disgusting quotes from the left as you can dig up from the Right. My point's proven, one extreme is just as bad as the other.

what gave you the idea that i assumed only one side accrued casualties in a war? are you really so wrapped up in your own **** that you think something that basic would not occur to me? did you guys think much about it before we invaded? do you think cheney gave it much thought? he must have because back in 1994 he said that going into baghdad would lead to a "quagmire". what's changed since then? obviously nothing, but they went ahead with it anyway, knowing what the consequences were. brilliant decision making on their part. :whatever:

The way you talk, it's aamazing that you get even the most basic of points seeing just how much hatred and partisanship you carry on your shoulder.

Cheyney knew it would be difficult, and? Since when has difficult meant that you should automatically quit? Since when does a level of difficulty mean you abandon your ground and look for something easy? It's this attitude that I've been talking about and pointing out. Really, it's sad.

tell that to families of soldiers who've died over there while our government was working out the kinks on their failed policy. i'm sure they'd love to have you break it down for them with empty phrases like the one above.

Heh, perhaps you haven't bothered to look outside your little bubble, but there's several groups of families that have lost loved ones and still support Bush and this Administration. So don't bother trying to speak for everyone because that requires you to actually see both sides of the coin.

i fault whoever voted to use military force, but at the same time, i'm not naive enough to think that they were provided accurate intelligence. we've seen from the start that the bush administration worked extremely hard to "sell" this war to the american people.

Oh God, you're completely incpable of placing any amount of accountability on your Party. This is true, hardline partisanship. Do what you always do, blame someone else, it's what some members of your Party have honed to an art.

"mistakes"? that's one of the most obnoxious things you've said so far. would you call it a mistake that bush continued to tell us that iraq was trying to acquire enriched uranium from niger even after the story had been disproven by the intelligence community and had been removed from his speeches several times, only to mysteriously end up back in them? was it a mistake cheney went on the news shows and said there was no doubt that iraqi officials had met with mohammed atta in europe prior to 9/11 even though it was disproven by the intelligence community? was it a mistake that british officials were quoted as saying the bush administration needed to "sell" the war to the american public? how about the italian documents that were proven to have been forged but the bush administration still defended? how about their informant "curveball" who told them what they wanted to hear about iraq's chemical weapons program, which ended up being lies? they cherry-picked, lied and bullied their way into getting that authorization to invade, all while our country was still reeling from 9/11 and trusted them to do the right thing. that's manipulation, plain and simple, and it's despicable.

Heh, amazing. Never knew one person could be so blind.

George Bush alone does not run this country. There is an intelligence community, there is a Congress, there is a Senate, there is a Judiciary Branch, there are groups and counsels set aside to investigate everything that goes on inside Washington. You truly seem to believe that EVERY last one of them was 'suckered' in by one man, that this one man fooled an entire nation, the globe no less, on his own. It's insane. There were members within your own Party that are just as accountable, that turned a blind eye to what they didn't want to see, that went along with things that they claim NOW they didn't agree with.

Don't even try to feed my this conspiracy theory bullsh_t. There are alot of people to blame for the mistakes and missteps made in the lead up to the war and they come from both parties and those members of the government that operate outside of them. The day you give up your need to blame everything on the Republican party is the day you'll actually be able to lay claim to seeing things in a 'rational' sense. Until then, save this tripe for someone who believes it.

oh, so now you're an expert on what i'm "implying"? a mind reader, eh? what's it going to hurt if we bring them to the table, so to speak? outright shunning them from this process is not going to help matters. to use your brilliant tactic, "have you ever worked out a diplomatic agreement between middle eastern countries before?" these things aren't easy and if you automatically put yourself at a disadvantage by not pursuing all option on the diplomatic front, you're doing everyone a disservice. how can you say for sure it was a "political red herring"? need i remind you how wrong your party has been in this whole cluster****? iran offered their support and condolences after 9/11 and we spat on them and got all cowboy on their asses and labeled them "evil". nice use of diplomacy.

It doesn't take an expert, hell, it doesn't take a GED to see what your implying, when you even bother to do so.

Shunning an opportunistic, undesirable, and completely hostile element from a conversation that involves a country they want to devour is completely reasonable. Somehow, in that head of yours' you seem to think that now, after all these years of strife and violence between the two, that NOW Iran has turned into the land of non-violence and healing, one that esteems rationality and wants to see their enemies prosper under their own rule. Give me a break.

As to your repeatedly and clearly stale attempts at jabbing the Republican Party, painting them in the wrong again, it's been far more than just the Republican Party that's clearly stated that Iran has no positive intentions in Iraq. Democratic, Repulican, and Independent alike. There's got to be a reason and I suspect that they've got it right.

It's ironic. You're a Democrat and you still can't tell political posturing when you see it.

Amazing.

Genesis 1.0

02-13-2008, 06:14 PM

Hell, I'll get to the rest tommorow.

I just got off work and you're headed in. How ironic.

Arc-Light

02-13-2008, 06:31 PM

That comment is seriously taken out of context and its meaning has been horribly warped and misleading.

His 100 years comment was refering to how American troops are still in Japan and Korea. He stated that he has no problem with Americans staying in Iraq for the long term and maintaining an American presence as long as American soldiers are not being harmed, injured, or killed just like in Japan and South Korea.

People who spread such misinformation (Obama in particular) should be ashamed of themselves for not even listening or reading the entire quote.

Listen to it (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFknKVjuyNk)

Or you can just read the thing

I can understand why someone would not like to vote for McCain. He's spent recent years sucking up to the evangellical and neo-conservative leadership of the Republican Party so he could get as far as he is today (yet that apparently failed). He's supportive of the Iraq War and he believes in a hawkish foreign policy. He's anti-abortion. And while some extremist Republicans try to paint him as a liberal, the man is definetely a conservative.

But not voting for him because of a quote taken out of context is completely stupid.

Actually McCain is wrong in terms of Korea and Japan...For Japan well they surrendered to us in WW2, so umm yeah it would be a good idea to put troops there right..any similarities to Iraq= None. For Korea we helped the South Koreans in the Korean war because our fear of the spread of communism....any similarities to Iraq= None. For Iraq ahhhh ummm why are we in Iraq..help me out here.

hippie_hunter

02-13-2008, 10:21 PM

Actually McCain is wrong in terms of Korea and Japan...For Japan well they surrendered to us in WW2, so umm yeah it would be a good idea to put troops there right..any similarities to Iraq= None. For Korea we helped the South Koreans in the Korean war because our fear of the spread of communism....any similarities to Iraq= None. For Iraq ahhhh ummm why are we in Iraq..help me out here.

Hey I'm not saying that you have to agree with him on Iraq. Personally I think that we would be better off pulling out of Iraq.

But his 100 years comment is taken out of context. That is fact. It's made even worse when Obama goes off taking the comment out of context.

People take it as Iraq being in the same situation and American troops being in active combat operations, but McCain refered it to having a continuous presence in Iraq just like we have had a continuous presence in Japan and South Korea.

He downright stated that as long as American troops are NOT getting harmed (unlike the current situation where they are) he sees no problem with a continuous American presence to try and counter al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups just like we've tried to counter Communism in South Korea and Japan.

Venom'sDad

02-13-2008, 10:33 PM

Hey I'm not saying that you have to agree with him on Iraq. Personally I think that we would be better off pulling out of Iraq.

But his 100 years comment is taken out of context. That is fact. It's made even worse when Obama goes off taking the comment out of context.

People take it as Iraq being in the same situation and American troops being in active combat operations, but McCain refered it to having a continuous presence in Iraq just like we have had a continuous presence in Japan and South Korea.

He downright stated that as long as American troops are NOT getting harmed (unlike the current situation where they are) he sees no problem with a continuous American presence to try and counter al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups just like we've tried to counter Communism in South Korea and Japan.

It was taken out of context, but the thing is both Obama and billary had said the same thing. that's why in another thread I said, no, Obama won't pull out all the troops.

Nobody will... McCain, Obama, billary, the House, nor the Senate. Read My Lips.... No One. ;)

BlackLantern

02-13-2008, 10:35 PM

Arc-Light

02-13-2008, 11:18 PM

Hey I'm not saying that you have to agree with him on Iraq. Personally I think that we would be better off pulling out of Iraq.

But his 100 years comment is taken out of context. That is fact. It's made even worse when Obama goes off taking the comment out of context.

People take it as Iraq being in the same situation and American troops being in active combat operations, but McCain refered it to having a continuous presence in Iraq just like we have had a continuous presence in Japan and South Korea.

He downright stated that as long as American troops are NOT getting harmed (unlike the current situation where they are) he sees no problem with a continuous American presence to try and counter al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups just like we've tried to counter Communism in South Korea and Japan.

And there lies the problem, is it ok for our troops to die, and keep dying because the Iraqis can't stop the in-fighting....and al-qaeda is only there because we are there, we leave then they cant use are own troops as practice. So some of you might be fine keeping our troops in Iraq for a very long time, but the prices of death and in money is not close to the reward we wont get. That region of the world is so different in religion, culture, politics and the ppl there have been fighting each other for centuries. We wont change that with the gun, its up to the ppl in that country/region to do it for themselves, we do not have that right to do it for them.

hippie_hunter

02-13-2008, 11:23 PM

It was taken out of context, but the thing is both Obama and billary had said the same thing. that's why in another thread I said, no, Obama won't pull out all the troops.

Nobody will... McCain, Obama, billary, the House, nor the Senate. Read My Lips.... No One. ;)

Obama has already stated that he won't pull all the troops out. He'll keep a low number to protect the embassy, protecting civilians and U.S. bases, and counter-terrorism operations.

The mother f**ker can't even pull out of Iraq right. Keeping a low number of troops is just going to leave them for the slaughter.

hippie_hunter

02-13-2008, 11:34 PM

And there lies the problem, is it ok for our troops to die, and keep dying because the Iraqis can't stop the in-fighting....and al-qaeda is only there because we are there, we leave then they cant use are own troops as practice. So some of you might be fine keeping our troops in Iraq for a very long time, but the prices of death and in money is not close to the reward we wont get. That region of the world is so different in religion, culture, politics and the ppl there have been fighting each other for centuries. We wont change that with the gun, its up to the ppl in that country/region to do it for themselves, we do not have that right to do it for them.

Wow....you just completely ignored about EVERYTHING I've said.

Do I agree with McCain that we should keep a continual presence in Iraq? No, I think that we should get out of the Middle East because of what you've said.

But McCain's 100 years comments refers to having a continual presence in a situation like Japan and South Korea. Not in a situation where they are in a consistently harmful way which they are in now.

Also, al-Qaeda is getting beaten in Iraq. The Anbar Province is no longer an al-Qaeda stronghold, Mosul is pretty much the only major one now. The Iraqi people do not support them at all any more because of their tactics. And their numbers are dwindling. They put themselves in a position where it is literally impossible for them to win in Iraq.

In my opinion, I'm more worried about future ethnic tensions within Iraq than al-Qaeda. Will the Kurds continue to try and assert their independence? Will the Sunnis and *****es go back to fighting each other?

Arc-Light

02-13-2008, 11:57 PM

Wow....you just completely ignored about EVERYTHING I've said.

Do I agree with McCain that we should keep a continual presence in Iraq? No, I think that we should get out of the Middle East because of what you've said.

But McCain's 100 years comments refers to having a continual presence in a situation like Japan and South Korea. Not in a situation where they are in a consistently harmful way which they are in now.

Also, al-Qaeda is getting beaten in Iraq. The Anbar Province is no longer an al-Qaeda stronghold, Mosul is pretty much the only major one now. The Iraqi people do not support them at all any more because of their tactics. And their numbers are dwindling. They put themselves in a position where it is literally impossible for them to win in Iraq.

In my opinion, I'm more worried about future ethnic tensions within Iraq than al-Qaeda. Will the Kurds continue to try and assert their independence? Will the Sunnis and *****es go back to fighting each other?

No i understood, i knew what McCain met, what i am trying to say that McCain is wrong to even compare the Iraq situation to what we have with Japan and Korea, the 100 years comment i know was out of contexts.

If what you say about the insurgents is true then great the Iraqis can take control quicker.

I agree about the future ethnic tensions, that's the other point i am trying to make there was always tensions there and they were always fighting with each of for centuries, and we have no right to change that. Like i said they have to figure that one out themselves not us.

hippie_hunter

02-14-2008, 12:28 AM

No i understood, i knew what McCain met, what i am trying to say that McCain is wrong to even compare the Iraq situation to what we have with Japan and Korea, the 100 years comment i know was out of contexts.
Oh, then I misunderstood you and I apologize.

If what you say about the insurgents is true then great the Iraqis can take control quicker.
Yeah, al-Qaeda has had a lot of setbacks lately, they kinda screwed themselves over to the point where the Sunnis have a more favorable view of the Americans over them. If they didn't have such brutal tactics that targeted civilians, things would likely be very, very different.

Other insurgents are a different story. Just who knows if the militias and groups fighting with us now, will fight against us later. There are other groups asides from just al-Qaeda that wants us out of Iraq after all.

I agree about the future ethnic tensions, that's the other point i am trying to make there was always tensions there and they were always fighting with each of for centuries, and we have no right to change that. Like i said they have to figure that one out themselves not us.
That I agree with.

Frankly, I feel that while I disagree with his views on Iraq, I feel that McCain is the best candidate on the issue. Mostly because Hillary and Obama can't even pull out properly. I mean if you aren't going to pull all of the troops out of Iraq, you might as well keep the bulk of them in. Leaving 5,000 troops is just leaving them for the slaughter.

Also McCain from the start has criticized the Bush Administration and Donald Rumsfeld for poorly planning the Iraq invasion and the surge which McCain has heavily supported has seen some successes. While the politicians have been trying to wrestle control of Iraq whether it be George Bush and the Republicans or the Congressional Democrats, McCain has repeatedly stated that the military is what should be in control. Vietnam suffered the very same problem.

BlackLantern

02-14-2008, 06:26 AM

If "letting them figure things out for themselves" involves chemical and nuclear weapons....are you ok with that???

bell110

02-14-2008, 11:25 AM

In my opinion, I'm more worried about future ethnic tensions within Iraq than al-Qaeda. Will the Kurds continue to try and assert their independence? Will the Sunnis and *****es go back to fighting each other?

Yes and Yes.

Other insurgents are a different story. Just who knows if the militias and groups fighting with us now, will fight against us later. There are other groups asides from just al-Qaeda that wants us out of Iraq after all.

Thats almost a guarantee.

If "letting them figure things out for themselves" involves chemical and nuclear weapons....are you ok with that???

As long as it doesn't involve us, sure why not. :oldrazz:

Kelly

02-14-2008, 11:46 AM

As long as it doesn't involve us, sure why not. :oldrazz:

I am hoping you are kidding, because chemical and nuclear weapons in the hands of anyone in the world that plan on using them, other than for energy.......BEFORE....................there is an initial attack against them....DOES INVOLVE US, AND EVERYONE ELSE IN THE WORLD.:huh: :huh: :huh:

Arc-Light

02-14-2008, 02:18 PM

If "letting them figure things out for themselves" involves chemical and nuclear weapons....are you ok with that???

We took care of that.....by bombing thier means of producing said weapons......plus i would hope they wouldnt try that again.

sinewave

02-14-2008, 03:33 PM

Like Hell, I refuse to apologize for YOU reaching. Unless you plan to blame that on myself and the Republican Party as well.

ah, i see how it works. you accuse me of something, i prove you wrong, you admit to missing that info that proves you wrong and now i'm reaching to somehow blame the republican party. once again, brilliant logic on your part.

We're not nation building, we're helping REBUILD a nation that had a corrupt government and leader before we ever entered. This isn't building something from the ground up, we're simply helping the Iraqi people straighten out the framework so that a government that allows ALL of it's people to participate can flourish. We're helping to fix some of the things that were destroyed by our actions and helping with the growth of another beacon of hope in a region populated by corruption and tyranny. It's a fact, not a slogan.

no, we tore down the infrastructure of their nation and are now trying to build it back up. see that word you felt the need to capitalize "REBUILD" contains the root word, "build". so, you're basically agreeing with me. good, it's a start. moving on...

It's called responsibility, we teach it to our children and the hell if those leading our nation should adopt a policy that shows a callous disregard for our responsibilities abroad. With any amount of power there comes an equal amount of responsibility, the United States has never been one to sit on their hands whenever there is wrongdoing or a threat looming so why should we stop that now?

We helped put them here, we should not simply leave them to foot the bill.

call me crazy, but i'm thinking it's a bit hypocritical for the republican party to be preaching "responsibility" when they couldn't even take "responsibility" for all the ****ups they made until everything was finally, unavoidably obvious to everyone, and then all they did was try to change the subject or shift the blame off themselves to anyone else they could find. "but the dems voted for it too!" :whatever:

The man's elusive, pursuing the War on Terror, continuing the pressure in Afghanistan, none of these things guarantee the immediate or timely capture of Bin Laden. No matter how many bomb runs or men you put on the ground, you can't catch someone like that with those elements alone. You need intel, correct intel, you need to forge the alliances that our men have on the ground in the tribal regions. We've been working on it, like anything done by man, it could be done better, but that can't be helped at the moment. There is no lack of effort on the part of the U.S. millitary or in the policy of the Bush Administration. By your own logic, strange as it is, finding him would be a top priority for them as well. An immediate means of vindication to some degree, so don't try sliding that crap about Bush not trying hard enough.

Odd as it may be to you, rebuilding Iraw takes presidence over finding a single man, as dangerous and heinous as he may be. We're battling his followers and trying to find him AND helping Iraq recover. Neither has been neglected.

wowie zowie, that's some world-class spinning there. (i should point out that that's sarcasm, since you seem unable to differentiate it from straight talk) so, let me get this straight. the man responsible for the most violent attack on american soil is our main target after 9/11, but when we let, i repeat, LET him escape due to the incompetence of our leaders and the people they chose to run this thing, instead of accepting responsibility (there's that word again!) for that blunder, you use the standard republican tactic of downplaying the seriousness of it, changing the subject and shifting the blame. how noble of you. :whatever:

oh, and there is a lack of effort on the part of the military to find him. wanna know why? BECAUSE THEY WERE ****ING REMOVED FROM THE HUNT AND SENT TO IRAQ! whew, sorry for that outburst, but it just doesn't seem like anything is getting through that thick, crusty layer of your dome.

bush is trying hard enough, in your opinion? ok, let me re-post his quote about bin laden: "Gosh, I just don't think I ever said I'm not worried about Osama bin Laden. It's kind of one of those exaggerations. I truly am not that concerned about him." that's a far cry from "we will bring him to justice!"

and it's not a "single man", he's built a stronghold in pakistan where he's training the next generation of terrorists who want to, as your fearless leader describes it "destroy our way of life". don't you think that should merit even a smidge of attention on our part? i mean, we were all up in arms about al qaeda establishing a stronghold in iraq, but when they actually do establish one in the middle east, we couldn't care less about it. what's the dizzle?

Oh so if you aren't on the ground, then your opinion doesn't matter, it's all a smokescreen? You're a hypocrite because if that was the case, if you were truly so predicated on the members of the American millitary then you'd actually listen to the commanders on the ground! You'd listen when they said it's going to take more time and a greater committment to the war. But you don't. You dismiss them like you dismiss anything that doesn't agree with your point of view, so please, spare me.

The fact of the matter is that war requires 2 things: Those who will fight on the ground and those who will fight in the public arena. Neither can survive without the other. We need the troops to forge ahead and follow the initiatives set by those back home. We need those fighting in the public arena to stand fast and hold their ground in the face of those that would withdraw our troops and make their efforts for nothing. You can't have one without the other, so again you've overreached yourself and completely cheapened any possible point you hoped to make with that notoriously weak argument.

more ass-backwards logic? you're an endless fountain of that crap. my point is, for all the bluster about how noble a cause this war is and how much we need to support our country by supporting this war, i've seen way too many young republicans come up with excuses not to join up and fight in iraq. i, myself, don't support the war, so obviously i'd never fight in it. that's not hypocrisy, that's consistency and logic. look at mitt romney, he claimed his kids were supporting the war by stumping for his campaign. that's complete bull****. any politician that had anything to do with this war, republican or democrat, and hasn't sent their kid off to fight in it owes this country an apology. that includes the clintons, bush, whoever. and i salute guys like mccain and jim webb who's kids are fighting over there. i've got the utmost respect for our military over there, i was a member of the military years ago, so don't sit there and tell me that the public is losing this war because we don't support it. **** that, we've been hearing that bull**** from you guys for far too long now. we're losing the war because we shouldn't have gone in there in the first place, we mismanaged it from the beginning and now we're stuck there. it's that simple. and it was a republican led push into this war, so don't shift blame to the dems. even members of bush's staff have admitted in private that there was talk about going into iraq before 9/11, so obviously this had nothing to do with that and it was solely their (republicans) decision to invade.

Okay then, why is that there's such an out pouring for one and not the other? Can it be that your level and that of the public depends on how much American blood and money is spent in the process? Classical selfish behavior from this 'Gimme' generation. It's good to be sympathetic, just as long as it's far away and not bothering you personally. Pffffft.

:huh: dude, if you want my opinion on darfur, just ask. don't put words in my mouth. if i had it my way, we would have used our resources in that country instead of going into iraq. the whole excuse that we took out saddam because he was a dictator who was cruel to his people falls flat when you see countries like the sudan and zimbabwe suffering under much worse conditions fueled by oppression and violence that far exceeds anything saddam hussein did. once again, your words ring hollow.

sinewave

02-14-2008, 03:34 PM

Some time soon you'll realize that they're not buzzwords, they're simple truths. Proper comparison that just happens to be catchy because I happen to be good with words. Hell, you've already recommened and recognized my talent for such, why backpeddle now?

yeah, you're great with words, sparky. by the way, "sometime" is one word, not two.

YOU have problems with the Democratic Party? Well this is the first I've heard of it since this started.

of course i do, but that was never the topic of this discussion, so i just never brought it up. you should have used those mind-reading powers of yours to figure that out. tsk, tsk, tsk.

The hatred you hold for the GOP, better yet and more accurately, BLIND hatred. Somehow you seem to hold this moronic belief that partisanship overcomes partisanship and the best way to solve things is with, you guessed it, partisanship.

Somehow you've managed to convince yourself that your support of anything NOT Republican is somehow better than the plauges that afflict Washington today. It's more than hypocrisy, that's just ignorant. To be honest, that just disqualifies any notion of unbiased or factual debate since it's all clearly slanted one way. Pathetic.

if i've got blind hatred, then you've got blind allegiance, especially if you're willing to forgive the enormous mistakes this administration has made.

How nice of you to remind us all of the extreme right wing while clearly forgetting to include that there's another portion of it that's alot less combative and socially vulgar. But hell, since we're throwing around extreme quotes from Party Past, let's continue with the guys and gals from YOUR'S, 'eh?

Ben Afleck "It’s hard for me to have a respect (sic) for a guy who never held a job until he was 40."

Or Jonathan Alter "We’re seeing clearly now that Bush thought 9/11 gave him license to act like a dictator, or in his own mind, no doubt, like Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War....If the Democrats regain control of Congress, there may even be articles of impeachment introduced. Similar abuse of power was part of the impeachment charge brought against Richard Nixon in 1974."

Jennifer Anniston "Bush is a f***ing idiot!"

Ed Asner "Hannity's next. We're going after him just like we went after Limbaugh."

Alec Baldwin "Cheney is a terrorist. He terrorizes our enemies abroad and innocent citizens here at home indiscriminately. Who ever thought Harry Whittington would be the answer to America’s prayers. Finally, someone who might get that lying, thieving Cheney into a courtroom to answer some direct questions."

"...(following the impeechment of Clinton) all of us together would go down to Washington and we would stone Henry Hyde to death! We would stone him to death! Wait! Shut up! Shut up! No shut up! I’m not finished. We would stone Henry Hyde to death and we would go to their homes and we’d kill their wives and their children. We would kill their families."

Harry Belafonte on Colin Powell "There's an old saying, in the days of slavery, there were those slaves who lived on the plantation and were those slaves that lived in the house. You got the privilege of living in the house if you served the master exactly the way the master intended to have you serve him. Colin Powell's committed to come into the house of the master. When Colin Powell dares to suggest something other than what the master wants to hear, he will be turned back out to pasture."

SENATOR ROBERT BYRD: "There are white n***ers. I've seen a lot of white n***ers in my time. I'm going to use that word."

"The Klan (Ku Klux Klan which he was a member of) is needed today as never before and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia."

"(I will never fight) with a Negro by my side. Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds."

I'll stop there, but suffice it to say I can pull up as many disgusting quotes from the left as you can dig up from the Right. My point's proven, one extreme is just as bad as the other.

1. i'll never defend what sen. byrd said. that **** is pure racism and i've got a huge problem with that.
2. it's very telling that you equate people attacking a politician over their policy, to being even with attacking a victim of a terrorist attack, or questioning the military service of someone who lost three limbs in vietnam, or attacking someone who benefited from a policy and is trying to help more people get the same help. hell, your party even pulls the same dirty tricks on their own members because they aren't extreme enough! look at that attack ad that says mccain was a quitter because he was a POW. it's disgusting.
3. those "extremist" members of your party happen to get some of the highest ratings in the country for their particular radio and tv shows, so obviously they're more mainstream than you think. hell, cheney has been on limbaugh's show for crying out loud. that's not just being indifferent to their hateful rhetoric, that's supporting it, in my eyes.

The way you talk, it's aamazing that you get even the most basic of points seeing just how much hatred and partisanship you carry on your shoulder.

Cheyney knew it would be difficult, and? Since when has difficult meant that you should automatically quit? Since when does a level of difficulty mean you abandon your ground and look for something easy? It's this attitude that I've been talking about and pointing out. Really, it's sad.

no, the term he used was "quagmire" as in, something that we'd get bogged down in for a long stretch of time. if he knew that going in, and had that much time (since '94) to think about it, why did they dismiss anyone who suggested we needed more troops on the ground from the get-go? i mean, he knew it, right? you said so yourself. so what changed his mind? what made him think it would be a cake walk now? either he forgot or lied to everyone. neither excuse inspires much confidence in him. logic, it's your friend.

Heh, perhaps you haven't bothered to look outside your little bubble, but there's several groups of families that have lost loved ones and still support Bush and this Administration. So don't bother trying to speak for everyone because that requires you to actually see both sides of the coin.

and i honestly feel bad for those families, but they aren't helping things by supporting this administration. apparently they're as blinded to the republican party's faults as you are.

Oh God, you're completely incpable of placing any amount of accountability on your Party. This is true, hardline partisanship. Do what you always do, blame someone else, it's what some members of your Party have honed to an art.

uh-huh. i've already said i'm not happy with the dems who authorized military force. that was a very stupid mistake and a lot of them have apologized and realized the folly of their ways, but there's just way too much evidence that the bush administration lied their into gaining that authorization for me to take much blame off the administration and their supporters. speaking of hardline partisanship, i've yet to see you give any praise for the dems. all i've heard from you is that they're "weak". it's all conservative catch phrases and bumper sticker slogans about your lust for the GOP.

Heh, amazing. Never knew one person could be so blind.

dude, at this point, i wouldn't be surprised to find out out on the street corner with some dark glasses and a cup full of change.

George Bush alone does not run this country. There is an intelligence community, there is a Congress, there is a Senate, there is a Judiciary Branch, there are groups and counsels set aside to investigate everything that goes on inside Washington. You truly seem to believe that EVERY last one of them was 'suckered' in by one man, that this one man fooled an entire nation, the globe no less, on his own. It's insane. There were members within your own Party that are just as accountable, that turned a blind eye to what they didn't want to see, that went along with things that they claim NOW they didn't agree with.

Don't even try to feed my this conspiracy theory bullsh_t. There are alot of people to blame for the mistakes and missteps made in the lead up to the war and they come from both parties and those members of the government that operate outside of them. The day you give up your need to blame everything on the Republican party is the day you'll actually be able to lay claim to seeing things in a 'rational' sense. Until then, save this tripe for someone who believes it.

thanks for the "gub'ment 101" course, shooter. i'm not saying bush is some kind of lone mastermind. he's got a very loyal, fierce, secretive cabal of allies surrounding him that have played a huge part in his decisions. guys like cheney, rumsfeld, bill kristol, wolfowitz, richard perle, ashcroft, alberto gonzalez, condi rice, etc... they're all in league and a lot of them were in this wonderfully charming little sewing circle called "The Project for the New American Century" or "PNAC". look them up, they've got some really great ideas for america, like how the only way we're going to rally people behind the government is to have "another Pearl Harbor". that was all outlined before 9/11. funny how that stuff works out, huh?

It doesn't take an expert, hell, it doesn't take a GED to see what your implying, when you even bother to do so.

Shunning an opportunistic, undesirable, and completely hostile element from a conversation that involves a country they want to devour is completely reasonable. Somehow, in that head of yours' you seem to think that now, after all these years of strife and violence between the two, that NOW Iran has turned into the land of non-violence and healing, one that esteems rationality and wants to see their enemies prosper under their own rule. Give me a break.

As to your repeatedly and clearly stale attempts at jabbing the Republican Party, painting them in the wrong again, it's been far more than just the Republican Party that's clearly stated that Iran has no positive intentions in Iraq. Democratic, Repulican, and Independent alike. There's got to be a reason and I suspect that they've got it right.

It's ironic. You're a Democrat and you still can't tell political posturing when you see it.

Amazing.

that highlighted line could easily be used to describe us. i know much of the rest of the world would agree, but you're too blinded by your arrogance and nationalism to ever accept another viewpoint, especially a negative one towards our perfect nation. :whatever:

Genesis 1.0

02-14-2008, 05:16 PM

but you're too blinded by your arrogance and nationalism to ever accept another viewpoint, especially a negative one towards our perfect nation. :whatever:

It all boils down to that.

3 days and pages of debate and it's basically a waste of time because THAT'S your view, therefore you're completely incapable of seeing ANY other side than what you want to see which is ironically, what you accuse me of. I've said time and time again that there's fault on both sides to which you've responded that every wrong and ill in the world lies at the feet of the Republican Party so really, what's the point?

You're convinced that I'm a blind, arrogant, nationalist red neck with a big truck.

I'm convinced that you're a blind, hateful, anti-anything remotely right, anti-American, extreme populist, ultra-liberal who couldn't see the center if his life depended on it.

At least we both think we see the other for what they are and that's what agreeing to disagree is all about.:o

sinewave

02-14-2008, 05:29 PM

It all boils down to that.

3 days and pages of debate and it's basically a waste of time because THAT'S your view, therefore you're completely incapable of seeing ANY other side than what you want to see which is ironically, what you accuse me of. I've said time and time again that there's fault on both sides to which you've responded that every wrong and ill in the world lies at the feet of the Republican Party so really, what's the point?

You're convinced that I'm a blind, arrogant, nationalist red neck with a big truck.

I'm convinced that you're a blind, hateful, anti-anything remotely right, anti-American, extreme populist, ultra-liberal who couldn't see the center if his life depended on it.

At least we both think we see the other for what they are and that's what agreeing to disagree is all about.:o

oh, so now i hate america because i can see faults in it? should i just approve of everything we do as a country, then? would that be better? why is it when someone points out something they don't like about our country, a republican is right there to play the "anti-american" card. i mean, i know you guys think you have a monopoly on patriotism and all that, but jeez, let it go already. anywhozzles, good debating with you. happy valen-times.

xoxo,
sinewave

Kelly

02-14-2008, 05:52 PM

oh, so now i hate america because i can see faults in it? should i just approve of everything we do as a country, then? would that be better? why is it when someone points out something they don't like about our country, a republican is right there to play the "anti-american" card. i mean, i know you guys think you have a monopoly on patriotism and all that, but jeez, let it go already. anywhozzles, good debating with you. happy valen-times.

xoxo,
sinewave

Why is it when people generalize so much........they are always Democrats.....:cwink: :oldrazz:

Memphis Slim

02-14-2008, 06:16 PM

Obama wants to sit down and make friends with the Islamic Jihadists.

Isn't that sweet....

http://www.eternalsalvation.org/LaskarJihad.jpghttp://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon14.gif

sinewave

02-14-2008, 07:57 PM

Why is it when people generalize so much........they are always Democrats.....:cwink: :oldrazz:

touche.

Arkady Rossovich

02-14-2008, 08:11 PM

I wonder how Malice feels now that Romney is endorsing McCain.

But McCain's 100 years comments refers to having a continual presence in a situation like Japan and South Korea.

To keep an eye on them incase they ever revolt? I couldn't help but think this.

Arc-Light

02-14-2008, 09:05 PM

I wonder how Malice feels now that Romney is endorsing McCain.

To keep an eye on them in case they ever revolt? I couldn't help but think this.

That's wrong....they are there because what happened in the past, plus it provides a presence in that part of the world.

BlackLantern

02-14-2008, 09:16 PM

what bothers me is that you have all the anti-war rhetoric, people want us out of Iraq, but want us to go headlong into Myanmar(Burma) and Darfur. Circumstances aside, going into either place is just as ill advised as we would be invading a sovereign nation in either case.

rdh007

02-14-2008, 09:44 PM

LuiECuomo

02-14-2008, 09:46 PM

The Senator

02-14-2008, 10:03 PM

It's not so much sweet, but it's the way to approach this properly.

I disagree. Sitting down and talking to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is not going to stop him from nuking Israel if he wants to do so. I think Iran needs to be reminded that we possess the capability to wipe them out if they do anything provocative whatsoever. Chatting over tea and scones isn't going to change that slimeball's demeanor. You have to remind him that some of his behavior is simply unacceptable, and that if they act in such a defiant way, there will be hell to pay.

Personally, if so much as a design for an atomic weapon comes out if Iran, I think we have a moral obligation to destroy their nuclear facilities by any means necessary. Economic sanctions and backdoor deals-- which is essentially what an Obama administration would end up involved in, much like Reagan was-- are not going to work with this nutjob.

(I do, however, disagree with that stupid picture depicting terrorists, which no president would sit down and bargain with)

Kelly

02-14-2008, 10:07 PM

I disagree. Sitting down and talking to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is not going to stop him from nuking Israel if he wants to do so. I think Iran needs to be reminded that we possess the capability to wipe them out if they do anything provocative whatsoever. Chatting over tea and scones isn't going to change that slimeball's demeanor. You have to remind him that some of his behavior is simply unacceptable, and that if they act in such a defiant way, there will be hell to pay.

Personally, if so much as a design for an atomic weapon comes out if Iran, I think we have a moral obligation to destroy their nuclear facilities by any means necessary. Economic sanctions and backdoor deals-- which is essentially what an Obama administration would end up involved in, much like Reagan was-- are not going to work with this nutjob.

(I do, however, disagree with that stupid picture depicting terrorists, which no president would sit down and bargain with)

We have the capabilities of taking out every facility like threading a needle.......BUT, if we use maps, like we used in Kosovo and instead of taking out the Serbian Communication building, and instead bombed the Chinese embassy.......WE WOULD BE SCREWED.........

teseract

02-15-2008, 02:04 PM

There is no "Seperation of Church and State" in the Constitution". Read it.

There is a implicit separation of church and state in the constitution as well as an explicit one in the treaty of triplois

teseract

02-15-2008, 02:21 PM

Oh not this again. You always seem to shore up reasons as to why you feel the Democrats are right in doing what they do and why the Republicans are so very wrong for the exact same act. It’s been said numerous times but I’ll say it again: both Parties are equally guilty for this gridlock on Capitol Hill and both sides have their various reasons and none of them amount to much more than partisanship. Simply because you happen to agree with one over the other doesn’t make it any better.

Wrong again, I'm not partisan democrat. What I am is partisan humanistic and civil rights. The party who wants to limit and violate these principles is fair game to me, meaning every strategy to spoil their efforts is good and dandy. In that area the ends (the protection of rigths and principles) justyfies the means ( making it impossible for the other party to do their thing). At the moment it is the republican party, who wants to install a religious conclave into the supreme court, effectively destroying means for non-christians to get a fair and balanced judgement out of the supreme court and they also want to introduce an amendment that will make the life of almost 10% of the population miserable. That to me can only be summed up with one word "evil" and whoever stands against evil gets my support. If the democrats would do these kind of things, then whoever opposes them would also get my support. But alas the US has only a 2 party system.

Oh and btw secular is NOT the opposite of religious. Secular only means the separation of religion and politics.

Genesis 1.0

02-16-2008, 01:07 PM

oh, so now i hate america because i can see faults in it? should i just approve of everything we do as a country, then? would that be better? why is it when someone points out something they don't like about our country, a republican is right there to play the "anti-american" card. i mean, i know you guys think you have a monopoly on patriotism and all that, but jeez, let it go already. anywhozzles, good debating with you. happy valen-times.

xoxo,
sinewave

I'd comment on the generalization but Kel already did so instead I'll simply return the sentiment, good debate bro.

All my Love,
Genesis 1.0:indy:

Genesis 1.0

02-16-2008, 01:09 PM

Wrong again, I'm not partisan democrat. What I am is partisan humanistic and civil rights. The party who wants to limit and violate these principles is fair game to me, meaning every strategy to spoil their efforts is good and dandy. In that area the ends (the protection of rigths and principles) justyfies the means ( making it impossible for the other party to do their thing). At the moment it is the republican party, who wants to install a religious conclave into the supreme court, effectively destroying means for non-christians to get a fair and balanced judgement out of the supreme court and they also want to introduce an amendment that will make the life of almost 10% of the population miserable. That to me can only be summed up with one word "evil" and whoever stands against evil gets my support. If the democrats would do these kind of things, then whoever opposes them would also get my support. But alas the US has only a 2 party system.

Oh and btw secular is NOT the opposite of religious. Secular only means the separation of religion and politics.

Tesseract, how many times must we dance to this melancholy tune? I'm not doing it this time, I'll leave the bait because I know the end result. There's no way I can go on with this statement from someone who calls most Republicans who have any religious prefrence a member of the 'American Taliban'.

It's bound not to end well.:o

teseract

02-17-2008, 07:09 PM

Tesseract, how many times must we dance to this melancholy tune? I'm not doing it this time, I'll leave the bait because I know the end result. There's no way I can go on with this statement from someone who calls most Republicans who have any religious prefrence a member of the 'American Taliban'.

It's bound not to end well.:o

Wrong again, I don't call all republicans with religious preferences "American Taliban" I call those American Taliban, who prefer their religious doctrine above the principles established in the constitution. I call the Tthe religious right that, to be specific, and the Republican party has kowtowed numerous times to these people, in the past, because their desire to hold power is bigger, than their desire to stop the religious whack jobs from pushing their evil agenda through and ruining the lives of many people in the process.

Huckabee is American Taliban through and through. John McCain is kowtowing to them at the moment because of the "votes", Rudy Guilliani was not American Taliban, Arnold Schwarzenegger is not American Taliban and a lot of Republicans aren't American Taliban, however, the Party as a whole has been High Jacked by the American Taliban because they prefer to hold power instead of doing the right thing.

Kelly

02-17-2008, 07:25 PM

Wrong again, I don't call all republicans with religious preferences "American Taliban" I call those American Taliban, who prefer their religious doctrine above the principles established in the constitution. I call the Tthe religious right that, to be specific, and the Republican party has kowtowed numerous times to these people, in the past, because their desire to hold power is bigger, than their desire to stop the religious whack jobs from pushing their evil agenda through and ruining the lives of many people in the process.

Huckabee is American Taliban through and through. John McCain is kowtowing to them at the moment because of the "votes", Rudy Guilliani was not American Taliban, Arnold Schwarzenegger is not American Taliban and a lot of Republicans aren't American Taliban, however, the Party as a whole has been High Jacked by the American Taliban because they prefer to hold power instead of doing the right thing.

But do you really realize what you are comparing the religious right to.....please tell me when men have beaten, poured acid, killed their wives for showing their ankels in public. please tell me when men have kept women from seeing male doctors because of their religious beliefs. please tell me when men of the religious right kept women from receiving an education. please tell me when the religious right of America has taken women who have dishonored their husbands into a large arena and shot them in the head as the public cheered.

I have no problem with you disagreeing with the religious right, but comparing them to the Taliban, is just ignorant of who and what the Taliban are, and what they believe.

You want to compare the Religious Right to the Absolute Monarchies of the 15th Century.....go for it, but the Taliban.....come on.....:o :o :o

BlackLantern

02-17-2008, 07:26 PM

^^^ yea what Kel said....I understand people like to throw the wordd 'Taliban' around for shock value, but that post just comes off as angry liberal rhetoric

teseract

02-17-2008, 07:39 PM

But do you really realize what you are comparing the religious right to.....please tell me when men have beaten, poured acid, killed their wives for showing their ankels in public. please tell me when men have kept women from seeing male doctors because of their religious beliefs. please tell me when men of the religious right kept women from receiving an education. please tell me when the religious right of America has taken women who have dishonored their husbands into a large arena and shot them in the head as the public cheered.

I have no problem with you disagreeing with the religious right, but comparing them to the Taliban, is just ignorant of who and what the Taliban are, and what they believe.

You want to compare the Religious Right to the Absolute Monarchies of the 15th Century.....go for it, but the Taliban.....come on.....:o :o :o

The similarty exists in terms of political desire. Both, the Taliban and the religious right are vehemently anti-human rights. Both desire to combine religious and political spheres. It's the political agenda that is the same, not the social practices (yet). Besides, I'm wholeheartly convinced that, if the religious right would get into power and codify their views into law you would pretty soon reach a state, where a lot of those atrocities you cited would rear their ugly heads again, towards women and any other group that goes against the idea of "christianity" the religious right expresses. Oh and btw, the monarchies of the 15th century pretty much behaved like what you described about the Taliban or what do you think was done to women and minorty groups back then?

teseract

02-17-2008, 08:00 PM

^^^ yea what Kel said....I understand people like to throw the wordd 'Taliban' around for shock value, but that post just comes off as angry liberal rhetoric

Oh I'm absolutely liberal, I'm liberal in the strictest sense of the word. I'm a strict adherent to Kant and Rosseau and I'm also angry. I'm angry that a whole party of the United States kowtows to people, who would catapult the country back into the middle ages if they could do as they want, all out of power hunger.

Kelly

02-17-2008, 08:05 PM

The similarty exists in terms of political desire. Both, the Taliban and the religious right are vehemently anti-human rights. Both desire to combine religious and political spheres. It's the political agenda that is the same, not the social practices (yet). Besides, I'm wholeheartly convinced that, if the religious right would get into power and codify their views into law you would pretty soon reach a state, where a lot of those atrocities you cited would rear their ugly heads again, towards women and any other group that goes against the idea of "christianity" the religious right expresses. Oh and btw, the monarchies of the 15th century pretty much behaved like what you described about the Taliban or what do you think was done to women and minorty groups back then?

Sorry, your comparison is still silly....

As far as the 15th Century, I was speaking of the Absolute Monarchies power coming through the church from God....

And if you think that ANY GROUP, in the US could come to power that would allow the acts against women, as sanctioned by the government.....then sorry, theres no use continuing the discussion.

MetalloX

02-18-2008, 10:59 AM

BlackLantern

02-18-2008, 11:02 AM

I wouldnt say Kel is far right on anything.....neither am I...Im fairly middle of the road and I wouldnt compare the evangelicals to the Taliban....it just doesnt make sense....its a verbal scare tactic.....like when Rudy invokes 9/11

The Senator

02-18-2008, 11:57 AM

So..How far-right are you?

From what I can tell, Kel is quite the moderate. :huh:

hippie_hunter

02-18-2008, 02:21 PM

So..How far-right are you?
I love it when someone who is a far-leftist or far-rightist that they automatically assume that the person who disagrees with them is automatically an extremist right or left winger while they see themselves as open minded :whatever:

BlackLantern

02-18-2008, 02:25 PM

I love it when someone who is a far-leftist or far-rightist that they automatically assume that the person who disagrees with them is automatically an extremist right or left winger while they see themselves as open minded :whatever:

or how one side feels the need to demonize the other...as if it makes their point more valid

Kelly

02-18-2008, 06:26 PM

Genesis 1.0

02-19-2008, 04:31 PM

Sorry, your comparison is still silly....

As far as the 15th Century, I was speaking of the Absolute Monarchies power coming through the church from God....

And if you think that ANY GROUP, in the US could come to power that would allow the acts against women, as sanctioned by the government.....then sorry, theres no use continuing the discussion.

So now you see why I passed on this little go 'round?:o

Ah but since a valid question has been raised, what political affiliation do you belong to exactly, or do you have one at all, Kel?

Superman4ever

02-19-2008, 05:54 PM

If Moses came down from heaven and told me that G-d wanted me to vote for McCain, I'd blaspheme like a mother ****er!

Just my opinion!

Kelly

02-19-2008, 06:00 PM

So..How far-right are you?

Well, if you've read any of my posts here or other places on the hype......you would realize that I'm actually very left of center. But I'm Independent......I've voted both Republican and Democrat in various elections.......

BUT, to be more specific, I would be considered fiscally right of center, and socially liberal.:yay:

Kelly

02-19-2008, 06:04 PM

So now you see why I passed on this little go 'round?:o

Ah but since a valid question has been raised, what political affiliation do you belong to exactly, or do you have one at all, Kel?

I answered this above for another poster...

BUT, please by no means confuse my discussion with agreeing with the Christian right............on many issues I DO NOT AGREE......I believe in God, and I'm proud of that.......but I see no need to push my beliefs on anyone. They are my beliefs........I do not mind, nor care if others do not share them........

Arc-Light

02-19-2008, 10:49 PM

Well, if you've read any of my posts here or other places on the hype......you would realize that I'm actually very left of center. But I'm Independent......I've voted both Republican and Democrat in various elections.......

BUT, to be more specific, I would be considered fiscally right of center, and socially liberal.:yay:

Ahhh trying to capture the best in both worlds...cheater.

terry78

02-28-2008, 06:17 PM

Everybody's so busy wanting to be down with the gang 'I'm conservative, I'm liberal, I'm conservative'. Bull****! Be a ****ing person! Lis-ten! Let it swirl around your head. Then form your opinion. No normal, decent person is one thing, ok? I've got some **** I'm conservative about, I've got some **** I'm liberal about. Crime, I'm conservative. Prostitution, I'm liberal! - Chris Rock

BlackLantern

02-28-2008, 09:10 PM