[kobi]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Just in case y'all were wondering if it's possible someone would be so partisan and thick-headed as to actually wish for troop failure;



Try not to slobber on yourself over the death count kobi.

Have we lost our friggin' minds? Are we really this consumed with the party line? This is absolutely disgusting. To those of you looking forward to Bush's term being up soon, power to you. I just ask that you search your soul and if you find the above quoted statement anywhere on your wish list, seek help.

There is no right or wrong. Only left or right.

i'd like to address a post that eBuddy spun of mine.

I want to make it clear that I am not wanting, advocating, hoping for the death of anybody much less an American serviceman or women who are in Iraq risking their lives for the US.

I had made a post earlier about the "troop surge" in Iraq failing and once it does that you'll see Republicans jumping ship and distancing themselves from President Bush and GOP. I stand by what I said in my post.

The only thing that I am wanting is our Troops home, Bush out of office, and to help fix all the scandals and mistakes the Bush administration has caused.

Now those comments were spun by eBuddy into that I was slobbering over the death count waiting for the troop surge to fail. I can't put into words the anger that i felt when I read eBuddy's comment; I could turn this into a personal attack but I'm taking the high road.

I do feel that his comment along with most of his posts are nothing but right wing talking points; propaganda at best. I also find eBuddy's spin very childish; but that's what happens when your pushed into a corner.

eBuddy, I hate to tell you this but your siding with the losers. The war in Iraq was lost the day that we invaded. A "troop surge" is just sending more US soldiers to the slaughter.

How can a "troop surge" stop a civil war that we started? If anyone is slobbering for death of US soldiers it's the current administration; how else can you explain their actions of the last 6 years??

Has any of the US foreign policy over the past 6 years made us safer? The short answer is no, it's actually made us less safe and created more terrorism.

It truly disgusts me is every-time I hear a news report of another roadside bomb killing American troops, I think to myself what kind of person would support this administration in this illegal war. I know where I stand, and now I know where eBuddy stands.

Thanks for the gut-check, it's people like you that made me want to go to law school, so I could stand up for what's right.

It's people like you that makes me want to do all that I can to get a Democrat back the office of the President.

Sorry to the other posters, but I had to defend my name.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by kobi 

It's people like you that makes me want to do all that I can to get a Democrat back the office of the President.

Because Democrats are all high-minded and virtuous and Republicans are all evil and conniving. Yes, I believe that what American politics needs is more blind partisan sheep.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Try not to slobber on yourself over the death count kobi.

Up to your old tricks, eh? Stop shoving words in people's mouths, ok?

[Atomic Rooster]

They used to use sheep to keep the Whitehouse lawn nice and trim.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Because Democrats are all high-minded and virtuous and Republicans are all evil and conniving. Yes, I believe that what American politics needs is more blind partisan sheep.

What we don't need are people unwilling to say that terrible policies are terrible policies, even if those terrible policies are implemented by a particular (gasp!) political party.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

What we don't need are people unwilling to say that terrible policies are terrible policies, even if those terrible policies are implemented by a particular (gasp!) political party.

Exactly, like the sort of person who believes it would be a good thing to have "a Democrat" — not a particular candidate, just a member of the party — as president.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Exactly, like the sort of person who believes it would be a good thing to have "a Democrat" — not a particular candidate, just a member of the party — as president.

Right, parties have nothing to do with candidates' political positions. When you elect a president or a representative, you're voting for the policies of a party. To think otherwise is to ignore reality, especially in the case of someone willing to vote for those demonstrably harmful policies yet again in the name of "not being partisan."

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Right, parties have nothing to do with candidates' political positions. When you elect a president or a representative, you're voting for the policies of a party. To think otherwise is to ignore reality, especially in the case of someone willing to vote for those demonstrably harmful policies yet again in the name of "not being partisan."

So, since I support gay marriage, and Democrats are the party in favor of gay rights, Lieberman would be a good choice to support, right? And since Bush is a Republican, no Republicans would ever be dissatisfied with him, right?

To assume anything about a candidate based on his party affiliation is sheer madness. I'm a Republican, but I've opposed half the things done on Bush's watch.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

So, since I support gay marriage, and Democrats are the party in favor of gay rights, Lieberman would be a good choice to support, right? And since Bush is a Republican, no Republicans would ever be dissatisfied with him, right?

To assume anything about a candidate based on his party affiliation is sheer madness. I'm a Republican, but I've opposed half the things done on Bush's watch.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

So, since I support gay marriage, and Democrats are the party in favor of gay rights, Lieberman would be a good choice to support, right?

If that's the only issue you care about, absolutely. Of course, you might vote against him in the primary, like Democrats did recently, if you agree with a different Democrat more than Lieberman.

To assume anything about a candidate based on his party affiliation is sheer madness. I'm a Republican, but I've opposed half the things done on Bush's watch.

Wow. One shouldn't assume anything about a candidate? That is truly absurd. The most important factor, IMO it's damn close to 100%, is party affiliation. You can go ahead and vote on hair style or meaningless campaign rhetoric if you like, but I'll vote on actual policy position, thankyouverymuch.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

If that's the only issue you care about, absolutely.

Uh…no. Lieberman is a long-time opponent of gay marriage. That was my point. While they presumably agree with some general ideology, there's a lot of wiggle room within the two major parties. As another example, he's also against gun control. Some commentators have actually suggested that Lieberman would do better as a Republican.

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Of course, you might vote against him in the primary, like Democrats did recently, if you agree with a different Democrat more than Lieberman.

If their ideas are as homogeneous as you're saying, the idea that I might agree with one more than another is absurd.

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Wow. One shouldn't assume anything about a candidate? That is truly absurd. The most important factor, IMO it's damn close to 100%, is party affiliation. You can go ahead and vote on hair style or meaningless campaign rhetoric if you like, but I'll vote on actual policy position, thankyouverymuch.

Which varies from candidate to candidate. There are more and less conservative elements of the Democratic Party, likewise for the Republican Party. There are some Republicans who are very strong Republicans like Bush and then there are others who would really be more at home with the Libertarians but actually want to be politically viable. The current governor of my state is a Republican, but he's shockingly buddy-buddy with the Democratic legislature. Party affiliation is a very broad guideline, not a definite indicator of any particular stance. Remember: The last Democratic presidential candidate voted for the war while I opposed it!

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Uh…no. Lieberman is a long-time opponent of gay marriage. That was my point. While they presumably agree with some general ideology, there's a lot of wiggle room within the two major parties. As another example, he's also against gun control. Some commentators have actually suggested that Lieberman would do better as a Republican.

Uh yes. Lieberman is right in the middle of the Democratic party on the issue. He, like just about every other Democrat, supports civil unions, opposes federally mandated gay marriage, but also opposes Republican attempts at federally outlawing gay marriage. If you're interested in gay rights, your views are without question better represented by the Democratic party than the Republican party. It's true that few Democrats support gay marriage outright, but the Republican party wants to use the federal government to prevent states that want it from allowing it. There's a huge difference there, and the fact that you don't see it is exactly what I'm talking about. As far as I know, Lieberman is also right in the middle of the Democratic party on gun control.

If their ideas are as homogeneous as you're saying, the idea that I might agree with one more than another is absurd.

I have never said there aren't any differences among politicians with the party, but 1) those differences are dwarfed by inter-party differences, and 2) when you vote for a member of congress from a particular party, you're also voting for the leadership of that party to run the congress. That makes a huge difference.

Which varies from candidate to candidate. There are more and less conservative elements of the Democratic Party, likewise for the Republican Party. There are some Republicans who are very strong Republicans like Bush and then there are others who would really be more at home with the Libertarians but actually want to be politically viable. The current governor of my state is a Republican, but he's shockingly buddy-buddy with the Democratic legislature. Party affiliation is a very broad guideline, not a definite indicator of any particular stance. Remember: The last Democratic presidential candidate voted for the war while I opposed it!

This is a perfect example - you think that someone who was against the Iraq war would have been better represented by Republicans?!?! That's the kind of illogic you get when you ignore party.

And the idea that Bush is now considered a "very strong Republican" is quite interesting isn't it, given that he ran on being a new kind of conservative, a compassionate conservative. Seems that campaign rhetoric didn't really matter, did it?

If you actually have any positions on policy issues, it is irrational to ignore party. 1) You'll usually be wrong (e.g., believing Bush would be a "compassionate conservative"), 2) your candidate will still vote for the leadership of his/her party, and 3) inter-party differences are the best predictor of votes. On the other hand, if you don't care about policy and like to focus on what the media focuses on - personality and hair style and such - voting across party makes perfect sense.

[nonhuman]

The elected president is supposed to be the ideological leader of his party. So Bush is, by definition, very Republican...

[andi*pandi]

so Romney, by definition, is?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

so Romney, by definition, is?

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

There's a difference between tolerating diversity and suffering fools.

and you're quite sure you've figured out which side is the fools?

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Have we lost our friggin' minds? Are we really this consumed with the party line? This is absolutely disgusting. To those of you looking forward to Bush's term being up soon, power to you. I just ask that you search your soul and if you find the above quoted statement anywhere on your wish list, seek help.

There is no right or wrong. Only left or right.

this is the most intelligent statement I have ever read on NN forums.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by kobi 

I want to make it clear that I am not wanting, advocating, hoping for the death of anybody much less an American serviceman or women who are in Iraq risking their lives for the US.

Then don't minimize the impact of this issue by relegating it to nothing more than a football game... "and when they fail" nonsense. You can BS yourself, I'm not buying it. There are American servicemen and women risking their lives because they believe in our action there and don't feel it's a lost cause. I suppose you'd have to get outside your gated community and actually talk to one to know better. Is that how you show support for our troops? "... and when you fail in September handing success to Democrats..."? Trust me, they'd rather you shut the pie hole and join your buddies at the next anti-anything with an (R) rally. Careful not to spill your Starbucks on anyone.

1) I couldn't give a rat's ass which criminal misrepresents my country by winning office over a defeat in Iraq. You on the other hand, have expressed something quite different. You can backpedal now, but you're already soaked in slobber.
2) I wouldn't assume troop failure, but then I associate with people who aren't accustomed to losing.

I had made a post earlier about the "troop surge" in Iraq failing and once it does that you'll see Republicans jumping ship and distancing themselves from President Bush and GOP. I stand by what I said in my post.

... and when the Huskers beat the Aggies in September... Yeah I got ya loud and clear. I also know why you're so pissed off and it's not because I've hurt your 'name'. I've called your partisan BS to the carpet and you're upset. Cry me a river.

The only thing that I am wanting is our Troops home, Bush out of office, and to help fix all the scandals and mistakes the Bush administration has caused.

Pull our troops home and guess what... they'll be back again. Don't believe me? We were bombing them in the 90's and sending troops to their death in Yugoslavia under a (D), but somehow you're either too young to know better or too blinded by partisan naivete to understand.

Now those comments were spun by eBuddy into that I was slobbering over the death count waiting for the troop surge to fail. I can't put into words the anger that i felt when I read eBuddy's comment;

Good. That was the intention of my post. Feeling sensitive now? Perhaps you should've considered that before hitting 'submit'.

I could turn this into a personal attack but I'm taking the high road.

The high road???

Originally Posted by kobi

Especially considering that when the "troop surge" fails in Iraq, you'll see every Republican that wants to get re-elected distancing him/herself from Bush, the GOP and the Republican party.

It doesn't get much lower. I'd gladly give the entire hill to a (D) before wishing failure on our troops.

I do feel that his comment along with most of his posts are nothing but right wing talking points; propaganda at best. I also find eBuddy's spin very childish; but that's what happens when your pushed into a corner.

You haven't a clue about me because you've obviously not read a word of mine. My posts are entirely representative of who I am. When I oppose this Administration- I'm harsh. When I oppose a moronic post-I'm harsh.

eBuddy, I hate to tell you this but your siding with the losers. The war in Iraq was lost the day that we invaded. A "troop surge" is just sending more US soldiers to the slaughter.

Yes and I'm sure you've got a daily counter on your desktop. We've already committed the troops big shooter. Your House and Senate will approve funding to ensure they stay there indefinitely. You'd do well to at least hope for success. Wanna challenge our action there? Wanna protect your "name"? It's all in the delivery. Wanna be treated like an adult? Act like one. Your BS and partisan naivete is the reason we're so divided in this country.

How can a "troop surge" stop a civil war that we started? If anyone is slobbering for death of US soldiers it's the current administration; how else can you explain their actions of the last 6 years??

Same way I'd explain our actions in Germany or anywhere else. They had an ideal that a significant majority of Democrats and Republicans supported. You're obviously in favor of pulling out now, but I'm not sure you're measuring the cost in lives accurately. On this we'll have to disagree.

Has any of the US foreign policy over the past 6 years made us safer?

I don't know, but then... that's the tragic thing about whether you're safer or not. Being attacked is the only way to find out. I hope this is the only aspect of your life you handle reactively.

The short answer is no, it's actually made us less safe and created more terrorism.

Wrong. Terrorism created more Americans... at least for 8 months.

It truly disgusts me is every-time I hear a news report of another roadside bomb killing American troops, I think to myself what kind of person would support this administration in this illegal war. I know where I stand, and now I know where eBuddy stands.

I stand firmly opposed to anyone wanting a specific party in office so badly that they'd be willing to publically announce troop failure in advance. You disgust me.

Thanks for the gut-check, it's people like you that made me want to go to law school, so I could stand up for what's right.

Good. Let me know once you've gotten some more time there and I'll ask you what your take on "illegal" is.

It's people like you that makes me want to do all that I can to get a Democrat back the office of the President.

Right because our action in Yugoslavia was so successful they're touting the accomplishments to this day. Not to mention how effective the bombing campaign was in Iraq. I'd much rather you just put another bumper sticker on your car and spare us the partisan BS.

[kobi]

ebuddy your diatribe is just a testament of how brainwashed some people can become. It's sad really.

Please spare me the "holier than thou", straight from Bill O'Rilley, Republican talking points. Your just recycling someone else's rants and making them your own.

It's embarrassing to me that their are people who actually believe in some of the your right wing talking points/ideals.

But I guess you and the other 28% of Americans who still support Bush and the GOP and are so out of touch with reality, still matter in some places. It must be nice to live a glass house that large.

[greenamp]

Ron Paul 2008.

Brief Overview of Congressman Paul’s Record
He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.

He voted against the Patriot Act.
He voted against regulating the Internet.
He voted against the Iraq war. (only republican to do so)

He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.

Romney, Giuliani, etc are all scumbags.

[andi*pandi]

I am intrigued, tell me more.

[Mithras]

Romney has rocketed up from 3% to 7% in the latest Gallup poll. Dude is zoomin'!

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by kobi 

ebuddy your diatribe is just a testament of how brainwashed some people can become. It's sad really.

Please spare me the "holier than thou", straight from Bill O'Rilley, Republican talking points. Your just recycling someone else's rants and making them your own.

It's embarrassing to me that their are people who actually believe in some of the your right wing talking points/ideals.

But I guess you and the other 28% of Americans who still support Bush and the GOP and are so out of touch with reality, still matter in some places. It must be nice to live a glass house that large.

I'm not sure you read his posts.

They were all anti-partisan talking points. Where do you get off accusing him of "republicanism" and calling him a bush support? Many times he explicitly states the opposite?

Why don't you address his points instead of deflecting his arguments and making erroneous accusations? Or do you realize he's 1) got you beat or 2) more intelligent...or both?

[Atomic Rooster]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

I'm not sure you read his posts.

They were all anti-partisan talking points. Where do you get off accusing him of "republicanism" and calling him a bush support? Many times he explicitly states the opposite?

Why don't you address his points instead of deflecting his arguments and making erroneous accusations? Or do you realize he's 1) got you beat or 2) more intelligent...or both?

You're kidding...right?

[kobi]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Why don't you address his points instead of deflecting his arguments and making erroneous accusations? Or do you realize he's 1) got you beat or 2) more intelligent...or both?

I like the "more intelligent" crack, I really do. Are we still in 5th grade?? I thought I was in law-school??

I don't feel that I would have to warrant a reply to what I feel are canned talking points. Reading some of the posts here is like reading a transcript of the Bill O'Rilley show. Word for word. Anyone with a bit of intelligence knows that's it's BS, but they refuse to stand up for what they believe. There is that much kool-aid being passed around.

It's a waste of my time to try and write a rebuttal that will just fall on deaf ears.

[Kerrigan]

Republicans should be very choosy about their next candidates, because changing demographic trends and immigration will make it nearly impossible for a Republican to be elected president in 10-15 years time.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by kobi 

I like the "more intelligent" crack, I really do. Are we still in 5th grade??

Let's take a look;

I thought I was in law-school??

Seek help. I'd be amazed if you're even out of Jr. Highschool.

I don't feel that I would have to warrant a reply to what I feel are canned talking points. Reading some of the posts here is like reading a transcript of the Bill O'Rilley show.

Right. Points such as;

"both parties are two heads of the same snake"

"I'd gladly give the entire hill to a (D) before wishing troop failure" and...

"I couldn't give a rat's ass which criminal misrepresents my country by winning office over a defeat in Iraq." are all partisan talking points commonly found on the O'Reilly program. You're just spraying insults in a desperate attempt to hit something.

Word for word. Anyone with a bit of intelligence knows that's it's BS, but they refuse to stand up for what they believe. There is that much kool-aid being passed around.

Kool-aid? Is that an O'Reilly reference? I'm not the one touting attendance in law school as some arbitrary gauge of intellect. Bush graduated from Yale remember? Gee, you must think he's a super-genius.

Ironically, that's exactly what I've done. Stand up for what I believe. I find it reprehensible and disgusting to prematurely celebrate troop failure for nothing more than to get your guy in office. This degree of partisanship is pathetic.

It's a waste of my time to try and write a rebuttal that will just fall on deaf ears.

Seek help. No seriously.

[wolfen]

eBuddy is neither "e," nor very "Buddy."

Discuss.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by kobi 

I like the "more intelligent" crack, I really do. Are we still in 5th grade?? I thought I was in law-school??

I don't feel that I would have to warrant a reply to what I feel are canned talking points. Reading some of the posts here is like reading a transcript of the Bill O'Rilley show. Word for word. Anyone with a bit of intelligence knows that's it's BS, but they refuse to stand up for what they believe. There is that much kool-aid being passed around.

It's a waste of my time to try and write a rebuttal that will just fall on deaf ears.

So...you're above actually addressing points? Anyone with a bit of intelligence should know that you're right and everyone else is wrong? thats the same attitude ebuddy was trying to point out!

And since when is actually addressing arguments made against you drinking cool-aid? Did i miss something?

Oh yeah, being in law school or lawn care school doesn't make you any more or less "right." If you have such a good education then you should be able to refute his points instead of accusing him of using canned arguments.

[macintologist]

I support Ron Paul for president.

Ron Paul 2008

[CleoW]

^^^I didn't know Paul was pro-life.

I've always respected his agenda. I think he's a man of deep conviction---easily putting someone like Romney to shame.

[tie]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I have yet to see a single Democratic candidate campaign on a platform of personal liberty.

Are you kidding me? Social welfare state. Entitlements. No Democrat hopeful wants to touch the biggest budgetary problem - they want to make it worse.

Pelosi style diplomacy? Breaking protocol to break bread with terrorist-abetting countries?

We had a short lived recession inherited from the end of President Clinton's term, we bounced back after 9/11, we've seen moderate growth since then, low inflation, low unemployment and record highs in the stock market. What kind of prosperity do you want to restore? Or is that just a codeword for more thorough redistribution of the wealth?

While I will concede that the Bush Administration hasn't had much success on that front, I'm not sure there's much a president can do in the modern era to avoid scandal and innuendo.

Well I'm glad you support that goal, but in order to kill terrorists America actually needs to get its hands dirty on occasion and do just that. The Clinton Admin didn't pull the trigger against Bin Laden because officials were afraid there was the possibility of killing civilians at a playground. In comparison, I doubt President Bush would have flinched. I'd love to hear how you think a Democratic candidate would prosecute the WoT. I have a sneaking suspicion that if a Dem were elected, we'd revert to handling terrorism as a criminal matter and make the same mistakes we made pre-9/11.

That's great, but what do you want the president to do about it? Energy independence will come about when Detroit realizes internal combustion is no longer a viable energy source for the future. The government cannot force the executives of a particular industry to do something contrary to their current vested interests.

And how is the president supposed to make those jobs? We already invest a substantial amount of money into alternative energy research. It doesn't seem to have gotten us all that much as of yet. Instead of providing a one liner, please give some specifics on how a candidate, any candidate, is going to get you the alternative energy industry you want.

Most of your arguments are completely incorrect. But even still... on every single one of those points, the Democrats are ten times stronger than the Republicans. They don't have to be perfect, all it takes is doing better than the other guy. And right now, that's extremely easy. Bush has set the lowest imaginable standards for competence on issues across the board, and all the Republicans support them.

Take Iraq for example. Bush has no strategy other than "stay the course." He never has had one. But McCain supports it 100% and calls anyone who thinks it might be time to start coming up with a plan a terrorist. Not a winning strategy for a war, nor for an election.

[tie]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Ironically, that's exactly what I've done. Stand up for what I believe. I find it reprehensible and disgusting to prematurely celebrate troop failure for nothing more than to get your guy in office. This degree of partisanship is pathetic.

I love your guys' insults. I'm a terrorist supporting troop failure because I want a president who will make a plan before starting a war! Send me to Guantanamo!

Meanwhile, if I guess correctly how you voted in 2004, you have been trying to expedite troop failure. Who's really the terrorist?

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by CleoW 

^^^I didn't know Paul was pro-life.

I've always respected his agenda. I think he's a man of deep conviction---easily putting someone like Romney to shame.

He puts pretty much all the other Republican candidates to shame. If he gets the nomination I'll vote for him unreservedly. The only thing that would even give me pause if is Mike Gravel got the Democratic nomination. I haven't done a side-by-side of the two yet so I'm not sure which I like better. (Maybe if the Libertarians fielded a good candidate as well, but if Ron Paul gets the nomination they'll probably just endorse him. Hopefully, anyway.)

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

(Maybe if the Libertarians fielded a good candidate as well)

If only…

[SirCastor]

I was talking to my Boss recently about party politics, he used to be on the caucus around here. He kept on going out to lunch with a candidate who was pushing for his support. The candidate kept on pressing saying "We've got to stick together" meaning 'we' as in the Republican party. My Boss asked him why he should support him, the candidate said "Because we're in the same party", and it went on like this for quite some time. Ultimately, he told me that he votes based on what kind of a person a candidate is, rather than what he claims he will do, or what party he belongs to. Ultimately, the kind of person that a candidate is will determine much of how he acts, and what he does.

My Boss made a great statement: "We have lots of politicians, but very very few public servants."

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Mithras 

Romney has rocketed up from 3% to 7% in the latest Gallup poll. Dude is zoomin'!

Yes, he's really getting popular.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by tie 

I love your guys' insults. I'm a terrorist supporting troop failure because I want a president who will make a plan before starting a war! Send me to Guantanamo!

Please try to remain calm. I've not told you or even kobi that you're a terrorist. My focus was on the delivery of the sentiment. I understand people oppose our action (or lack thereof) in Iraq. I understand that people are entirely frustrated by the lack of progress and news coming out of Iraq. I've even expressed how I would've liked to have seen this action transpire differently. However, I also know for certain there are people so myopic that they would love to see more bad news for an (R), even if that means troop failure. I've been saying this for some time and a poster popped in to affirm it. In one breath they'll tell you they support our troops and in the next breath they'll say; "... and when you fail in September handing victory to Democrats". This is not support. This is celebrating troop failure prematurely for your desired political manifestation. I mean, is there another way to interpret the statement? Honestly.

It is pathetic and disgusting. Of course the statement is indefensible, but someone likely equally as myopic would pop in to defend it.

Meanwhile, if I guess correctly how you voted in 2004, you have been trying to expedite troop failure. Who's really the terrorist?

Forget how I voted three years ago, I voted for a (D) last year and expressed in these forums how I was hopeful for change. I also wanted to send a message to the Republicans in Washington. I warned skepticism however, because I realize both parties are two heads of the same snake. Inaction in the House and Senate has affirmed my suspicions.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

He puts pretty much all the other Republican candidates to shame. If he gets the nomination I'll vote for him unreservedly. The only thing that would even give me pause if is Mike Gravel got the Democratic nomination. I haven't done a side-by-side of the two yet so I'm not sure which I like better. (Maybe if the Libertarians fielded a good candidate as well, but if Ron Paul gets the nomination they'll probably just endorse him. Hopefully, anyway.)

I stand corrected on Ron Paul. He didn't strike me as particularly sane in the panel debate, but then... none of them did. As it turns out, Ron is potentially the most sane of them all.

[andi*pandi]

Originally Posted by CleoW 

^^^I didn't know Paul was pro-life.

I've always respected his agenda. I think he's a man of deep conviction---easily putting someone like Romney to shame.

he's very interesting--you can definitely respect his convictions, and his record... and he seems very into keeping the government out of your life (anti patriot act, pro small government, etc). However, those ideas do conflict somewhat with his pro-life views, which if used to enact legislation basically puts the government in your life at an intimate level. I guess that's what makes him a Republican not a Libertarian?

Perhaps he doesn't want to emphasize his prolife views too much, they are not listed in his "issues" page, but mentioned on the PR page when he got the endorsement from NH prolifers.

Still, it's nice to see a candidate that isn't "playing dress up" for the election. It would be even nicer to have two decent real choices, so that people vote across party lines.

[CleoW]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

he's very interesting--you can definitely respect his convictions, and his record... and he seems very into keeping the government out of your life (anti patriot act, pro small government, etc). However, those ideas do conflict somewhat with his pro-life views, which if used to enact legislation basically puts the government in your life at an intimate level. I guess that's what makes him a Republican not a Libertarian?

Not at all. One can easily reconcile pro- life views with libertarianism. If Paul has the knowledge that an unborn child is not part of a woman's body, but a genetically distinct living individual, he will, as a libertarian, seek to protect the right to life, liberty and happiness of that individual. Libertarians are usually not pro- life because they become preoccupied with an obfuscation of the real issue. And who can blame them? The knowledge is not readily available, deliberately hidden even. Can't interfere with a billion dollar industry.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by CleoW 

Not at all. One can easily reconcile pro- life views with libertarianism. If Paul has the knowledge that an unborn child is not part of a woman's body, but a genetically distinct living individual, he will, as a libertarian, seek to protect the right to life, liberty and happiness of that individual. Libertarians are usually not pro- life because they become preoccupied with an obfuscation of the real issue. And who can blame them? The knowledge is not readily available, deliberately hidden even. Can't interfere with a billion dollar industry.

Abortion is not a question of women's rights. It's a question of embryotic rights. (If they have them or not.)

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Abortion is not a question of women's rights. It's a question of embryotic rights. (If they have them or not.)

I would say they *do* have some rights but not as much rights as the mother. I would aruge that the right of the mother to decide whether to keep the zygote/embryo/fetus outweighs any rights held by the zygote/embryo/fetus.


Oh, and a BIG for Ron Paul. The more I read about the guy the more I like him. I disagree with a few of his stances but agree with many more of them. And he does have conviction about his positions. I wish we had more candidates lke him, all across the political spectrum. It would make for a more interesting political landscape in this country.

[tie]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Please try to remain calm. I've not told you or even kobi that you're a terrorist. My focus was on the delivery of the sentiment. I understand people oppose our action (or lack thereof) in Iraq. I understand that people are entirely frustrated by the lack of progress and news coming out of Iraq. I've even expressed how I would've liked to have seen this action transpire differently. However, I also know for certain there are people so myopic that they would love to see more bad news for an (R), even if that means troop failure. I've been saying this for some time and a poster popped in to affirm it. In one breath they'll tell you they support our troops and in the next breath they'll say; "... and when you fail in September handing victory to Democrats". This is not support. This is celebrating troop failure prematurely for your desired political manifestation. I mean, is there another way to interpret the statement? Honestly.

It's the same story. Bush and Cheney have consistently called their political opponents terrorists. Now that the vast majority of Americans disagree with them, they're calling us all terrorists. And you are playing the same game. I guess you think it is okay because they do it. It isn't, it's pathetic.

The current stay the course policy is obviously not going to succeed. And those Republicans who are supporting Bush in public, but privately saying that they'll have to reevaluate things in September (waiting until 2008 to flip-flop would be too transparent) -- they are political cowards, and yes they will pay for it. Yes, these are the facts. No, I'm not celebrating troop failure prematurely. I think it's awful that Bush is setting them up for failure, and it's tragic that the parties can't come together to support our troops and our national interest.

[besson3c]

I think it's sort of problematic that many people decide whether or not they like a politician by comparing the politician's stances on issues against a laundry list of issues that are important to you. There are other important things to look at other than what is being said, such as their voting record, their effectiveness as a politician, their experience, their environment, etc.

Everybody seems to base their decisions around what a politician can do for THEM, and that is fine to a point, but I just think there should be more to it than just that. Words are cheap.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by tie 

It's the same story. Bush and Cheney have consistently called their political opponents terrorists.

Really? Link please or are you just blathering knee-jerk partisan BS. You must've seen a "Bush and Cheney called you a terrorist" bumper sticker and decided this was a formidable argument for something? Quit being dramatic, they've said nothing of the sort.

Now that the vast majority of Americans disagree with them, they're calling us all terrorists. And you are playing the same game. I guess you think it is okay because they do it. It isn't, it's pathetic.

- Bush has not called you a terrorist.
- I've not called you a terrorist.
- You have no link to establish where I called you a terrorist, but continue to make this claim. *Hint, if it doesn't work the first couple of times, try a different tactic. Only the clinically insane reason in this manner.
- You have no link to establish where Bush and Cheney called all political opposition terrorists, (particularly most Americans) but you continue to make the claim like a chattering gibbon, paid per post by MoveOn.org.

The current stay the course policy is obviously not going to succeed.

The prior; "stay the course through 12 years of failed economic sanctions and occasional bombings" wasn't working either.

And those Republicans who are supporting Bush in public, but privately saying that they'll have to reevaluate things in September (waiting until 2008 to flip-flop would be too transparent) -- they are political cowards, and yes they will pay for it. Yes, these are the facts. No, I'm not celebrating troop failure prematurely.

Political cowardess is the way of things. This is what I've been saying. Both sides are at fault here. Congress should withdraw support for the war entirely if that's what they want, not play with its funding. The executive branch ought to have listened to a broader range of military expertise and been more effective at PR both here and abroad. I suspect they will both pay for it.

I don't know that I've accused you personally of celebrating troop failure prematurely unless of course, you're kobi. Have you decided to put the alias; kobi to bed for a while? BTW, you'd have been better off making kobi a doctor. It's not the alias that misrepresents. it's your posts.

I think it's awful that Bush is setting them up for failure, and it's tragic that the parties can't come together to support our troops and our national interest.

I agree.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

The only things the Democrats have to run on is failure in Iraq and an expanding social welfare state. Voters rejected both in 2004.

Those are pretty big issues to be able to run on. Iraq was the only thing Bush had to run on in the last election, when it was too early to effectively call Iraq a failure.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Abortion is not a question of women's rights. It's a question of embryotic rights. (If they have them or not.)

I know we don't want this thread to turn into an abortion thread, but I have to comment on this.

It's a question of woman's rights because, even if you consider the baby to have all of the rights of a fully-grown human being, it's a unique situation in which that person is fully inside the mother's body. You're not normally allowed to kill someone (with a few exceptions like self-defense), but on the other hand, the government doesn't normally require people to keep other people inside their bodies.

As a more plausible analogy, although it's illegal to kill your child, it would not be illegal for you to refuse to provide an organ for transplant to allow your child to live. In short, I just don't see how one can say abortion has nothing to do with mother's rights.

[CleoW]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

As a more plausible analogy, although it's illegal to kill your child, it would not be illegal for you to refuse to provide an organ for transplant to allow your child to live. In short, I just don't see how one can say abortion has nothing to do with mother's rights.

Actually in many states, the state can interfere and charge a parent with medical neglect if the parent makes a medical decision that may result in" imminent harm" to a child.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by CleoW 

Actually in many states, the state can interfere and charge a parent with medical neglect if the parent makes a medical decision that may result in" imminent harm" to a child.

Sure, but I don't know of any laws that require the parent to provide their own body, such as an organ transplant or blood transfusion or the like. Taking the kid to the doctor doesn't quite match up to keeping the kid inside your body. Hopefully they would provide a transplant or transfusion if their child needed it, but we wouldn't expect the government to require it. Anyway, I think I've made my point, so I won't further take this thread into the depths of abortion.