Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 35

Thread: Arnold and George: WorldNet Daily explains sellout

  1. #1
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    3,142
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][b]Posted: February 5, 2004
    1:00 a.m. Eastern


    2004 WorldNetDaily.com


    George Bush and Arnold Schwarzenegger have done more to demoralize American voters than any two politicians in my lifetime.

    Both were elected with the promise of bringing real change to their respective offices the presidency and the governorship of California.

    Their candidacies generated great excitement.

    Their elections brought great hope.

    But their actions suggest all they did was fool enough of the people to get their votes. And the people are catching on.

    George W. Bush promised to rein in spending. Instead, he signed on to the biggest increase in domestic spending in the history of the country, creating new entitlement programs and burdening future generations with the debt.

    Bush promised to increase national security. Instead, he proposed a "guest worker program" that not only winks at illegal immigration while the nation is threatened by terrorism and increasing crime, it encourages it with promises of "amnesty" from deportation and prosecution.

    Schwarzenegger, meanwhile, won his recall election campaign largely because of one issue his opposition to granting driver's licenses to illegal aliens. His first act as governor last fall was to repeal SB 60, signed by then-Gov. Gray Davis, which would have opened the road for the estimated 2 million illegal immigrants of driving age.

    But now he is negotiating with a Democratic state lawmaker to draft a bill that would do essentially the same thing.

    He said he is "absolutely positive we'll come up with a great bill" to replace SB 60, opposed by 70 percent of California voters, according to exit polling during the October recall election.

    [b]Schwarzenegger said his office has been working closely to craft a successor to SB 60 with state Sen. Gil Cedillo, D-Los Angeles, a former member of MeCha, the radical Latino student movement demanding annexation of all southwestern states.[/b]

    Meet the new boss same as the old boss.

    If two politicians of the same party set out deliberately to disenfranchise their supporters, no pair could have done a better job.

    In the process, they are leaving behind millions of disillusioned citizens. In the long run, this may prove to be a healthy thing for the nation, as Americans have become conditioned to expecting politicians to fix their problems. In the short term, however, it is going to mean some surprises at the polls.

    Many people have been turned off to politics because of these two monumental betrayals. They are asking what can be done. They want to know where they go next. They want to know whom they can trust.

    I believe Bush is going to lose his bid for re-election. He deserves to lose. I say that fully acknowledging that John Kerry is not worthy of occupying the Oval Office.

    I believe Schwarzenegger could never be elected again to statewide office in California because of his duplicity.

    But none of that will serve as comfort to their betrayed supporters.

    They're Angry. They're right to be Angry. And they won't get fooled again.

    How do we get ourselves as a people out of this electoral trap that offers us a choice that is no choice at all?

    It's time for some tough medicine. It's time to stop pretending that it works to support the "lesser of two evils." It's time to stop pretending that we can expect constitutional, limited government by electing people to office who have no respect for constitutional limited government. It's time to stop pretending that not voting in a race with only bad choices is a waste of a vote. It's a waste of a vote to give your support to a candidate who will betray his oath of office.[/b][/quote]


    The above is from a writer named Joe Farrah at WorldNet Daily. Explains, in great detail, why I don't plan to vote as a registered Republican anymore.

    I know, Clinton was 10 times as sorry, right? Please explain to me how. Explain it honestly.

    The words in Bold print are scary. I never thought I'd see the day that the Republican party would try to appease a member of a radical, left-wing group that supports "ethnic cleansing" in the Southwest and Westcoast...

    Again, be proud of Ahh-nold. He's a Republican, right? :rolleyes:

  2. #2
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    8,682
    Post Thanks / Like
    If Arnold is the reason you're leaving than the jokes on you. He's about as Republican as Wesley Clark is Democrat.

  3. #3
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,407
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by The Gun Of Bavaria[/i]@Feb 5 2004, 08:10 PM
    [b] If Arnold is the reason you're leaving than the jokes on you. He's about as Republican as Wesley Clark is Democrat. [/b][/quote]
    Arnold's been in office what...two months?

  4. #4
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    3,142
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by The Gun Of Bavaria[/i]@Feb 5 2004, 07:10 PM
    [b] If Arnold is the reason you're leaving than the jokes on you. He's about as Republican as Wesley Clark is Democrat. [/b][/quote]
    No joke, he symobolize's what the Republican have become. They are more bent on winning election's, than upholding our laws...Why do you think all the major Repulican's in America endorsed him over the more conservative Tom McClintock? They want to stand for nothing...As the writer said, they just want to fool enough people in election runs (ala Clinton), to get by.


    I guess the true joke, will be on all of us, including your children, who will eventually have two political choices: A socialist leaning Republican party and an even more socialist leaning Democratic party :rolleyes:

    In 10 years, when the population of Michigan doubles or triples, jobs are almost all sent abroad and gone and taxes are through the roof in order for the Dems and Repub&#39;s to pay for all their socialistic spending, the joke will be on who? <_<

    Look at the west coast states and you&#39;ll understand the enourmous debt those states have incured the last decade. They are now being bailed out by the FEDS (you can look that up--please do)..this will spread elsewhere and when it does, who bails the U.S out? Iraq? France?

    I see where the Repub&#39;s are going, and as Bitonti say&#39;s, there is almost no difference between the parties.

    Rock on modern Republican&#39;s, you&#39;re really the fiscal consevative&#39;s you promised :rolleyes: ....

    .And our nations soverignity, well, that means nothing because many of our laws, appearently, mean nothing :huh:

  5. #5
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    4,530
    Post Thanks / Like
    Many conservatives aren&#39;t happy with this spending spree. But Farrah won&#39;t be happy until the gummermint has to hold a bake sale to keep the Smithsonian open.
    Govermment has a role and does many things-not all things-well-"common defense" , roads, bridges, the Fed. But that "general welfare" has become way too broad. We will never live in some Ayn Rand free market libetarian Utopia(which might not be a good diea anyway), so pining for such things is a waste of time. For better or worse, a good chunk of the electorate really believes that the goverment can give them a free lunch, and especially so if they&#39;re elderly and vote-subsdized drugs and health care, Social Security payments that aren&#39;t means-tested, lunch programs for children, "paid" volunteers. Or if they live in Bobby Byrd&#39;s West Viriginia, which has more pork spending on nonsense and gibberish than he even knows-turd museums, a nulcear navy for he landlocked WV Guard, statues of Shania Twain to go next to every car on cinderblocks, and so forth. (And the same is largely true of that Republican embarrassment Trent Lott). And many initiatives and agencies that have nothing to do with their own agendas. The Deaprtment of Education deosn&#39;t run schools-municiplialties do. Every crime bill is a waste of ink-the federal courts prosecute a minscule fraction of crimes in this country( unless you&#39;re Martha Stewart, Pabloe Escobar or Timothy McVeigh). And [b][i]none[/i][/b] of the people who get this largesse ever consider for a second that someone has to pay for it. Truth be told, if some politician demanded we move Election Day to April 15th, I think people might think twice-and we&#39;d make the guy president for life. The first Tuesday in November is as far a date from tax day as it could be for a reason-it&#39;s easier to promise things if the costs aren&#39;t obvious.

    And the alternative is genuinely much worse-a complete indifference to national security so we can nitpick about poor little Muhammad from East Butfukistan who doesn&#39;t have his papers in order, have Chuck Schumer whine about BS and generally the politcal crap that has to end if we&#39;re ever going to be serious . That is over. And if all of these Che Guvara-t-shirted Chomskyite whiny rich white kids don&#39;t understand that, they need to be quiet or at least to review what happened on 9/11. I don&#39;t know if some of you aren&#39;t in New York, or weren&#39;t there or weren&#39;t personally affected as many of us were. And NO AMERICAN should ever have to go through that again. Even CLinton now realizes that. And after 9/11, we can&#39;t have that. These Democrats seem to actually believe that John Ashcroft is more of a threat than Al Qeada or what some of Saddam&#39;s buudies could have done to us. And if anyone doesn&#39;t realize how 9/11 chaged everything, you and they are phucked in the head-period.

    I wish Bush was more serious about immigration and cutting spending. But the Democrats don&#39;t care about immigration nor spending given all the programs they would readily enact. The choice is always going to be the lesser of evils. And if you don&#39;t understand that, well, get used to it. That is harsh reality.

  6. #6
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    the best thing republicans can say is "hey at least we aren&#39;t jackass democrats" <_<

  7. #7
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    3,142
    Post Thanks / Like
    First of all, thanks for the answer Bugg. It&#39;s well thought out and a different perspective.

    Bit, you basically hit on my point: Republicans, and those that follow them, are now basically relagated to saying, "we&#39;ve moved real far to the left, but we&#39;re still not the Democrats" :o <_<

    Weird thing is Bit, a lot of the same people would&#39;ve skewered "Slick Willy" and the Democrats back in 1996 or 1997, if he tried to pull what the Republican&#39;s are pulling now.

    It&#39;s weird, in the last month or so, Bush&#39;s approval ratings have dropped to their lowest level ever. Think I&#39;m alone in the way I think?

    I won&#39;t vote for the lesser of 2 evils, either...That&#39;s a waste of time.

    Maybe the trend of lower voter turnout will only increase, as most see no real difference except "one party stinks, but it stink&#39;s less than the other".

  8. #8
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    riggo the anti-Bush movement is palpable. Russell Simmons from Def Jam is sponsoring urban voting drives out of pocket, billionare George Soros is running TV ads also OOP, CBS wouldn&#39;t run an anti Bush ad during the Super Bowl (child&#39;s pay- little kids in factories as an illustration of the Bush deficit)...

    it will as 5ever says come down to who votes.

    im not a fan of the pickle king of Boston but when the rubber meets the road ill vote for literally a monkey or a smart dog before Bush. For the supreme court&#39;s sake if nothing else. Hopefully many others start thinking the same.

    ps every single US president was a member of the stonemasons... i think someone forgot to tell the general...

  9. #9
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    3,142
    Post Thanks / Like
    Bit, I really do like [b]5ever&#39;s[/b] take on things here. He tends to support those that match his principles, not vote by party lines. And he&#39;s right, this will come down to voter turnout and Bush should be a bit scared.

    At somepoint, you&#39;ve got to stand for something and I&#39;m not really sure what the Republican&#39;s stand for now, that was different than Clinton...I just don&#39;t.


    Matter of fact, I almost long for the early days of Clinton, when he was trying to be an America first, populist in the Ross Perot mode..

    Regretably, idiots like Dick Morris and his spouse, kept taking him gradually to the left, until he became an almost outright communist.

    Now, most Republican&#39;s seem to want to follow Clinton :blink:

    By the way, Republican&#39;s being a better choice than Charles Schummer is downright scary....What&#39;s next, McCain (a total lefty) is "less terrible" than Hillary <_<

  10. #10
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    851
    Post Thanks / Like
    I would not characterize the Republicans as moving to the "left" per se so much as they are happily enacting their own version of the Big Government Bloated Nanny State on Republican social terms (pandering to religious nuts, "promoting marriage", privatizing all social services and utilities but then paying churches, corrupt corporations like ENRON, and insurance companies to run them, throwing endless money at war and nukes, spending no end of money on Big Brother for everything BUT gun registrations) rather than Democrats (pandering to immigrants and minority advocate groups, bloating social services in the least helpful disciplined way possible, pandering to unions while still happily signing onto every WTO/NAFTA/Kyoto free-for-all that comes up, and going ape**** over gun laws).

    Both parties are increasingly guilty of enforcing "politically correct" terminology on their terms, and using ridiculous buzzword cliches ("special interest groups", "activist judges", "moral majority", "urban volvo-driving freak show", "rural bible thumping freak show", "terrorist sympathizer", etc) to rabble rouse the Angry masses rather than suggest and carry out constructive changes. We&#39;re about one election away from using "precious bodily fluids" and "information retrieval", I think.

    For awhile I thought the Republican Party was finally moving forward and courting libertarian types who want common-sense solutions without a mass privatization or corporate looting, and stop pandering to freaks like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell; I&#39;ve voted Republican on the local level before, but on the national level it looks like we&#39;re right back to watching the far right on social issues use Bush&#39;s machine as a stump for moving their ridiculous agenda -- and the self-described neocons, libertarians, and well-off suburban yuppies who want tax breaks are happy to keep looking the other way

    Especially post 9/11, when they have a new and much more profound justification for their partisanship. I still question the latter, because other than fringes like Kucinich/Sharpton/Braun, I haven&#39;t seen ANY evidence that Dean, Kerry, or especially Clark would hesitate for a milisecond to go to war in cases like Afghanistan and even the first Iraq war (yeah I know Kerry voted against it, but he&#39;s still paying for that mistake). But I&#39;ll always understand and sympathize with people who fear another 9/11 MUCH more than people who think that personal freedom, gay rights, birth control, atheists, and lack of sexual repression is single-handedly destroying America.

  11. #11
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    Jet Set said it far more eloquently, but I agree that both parties suck a&#036;&#036;.

  12. #12
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    4,530
    Post Thanks / Like
    Keeping abreast of federal budget developments

    February 8, 2004

    BY MARK STEYN SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST

    It&#39;s easy for those of us on the campaign trail to lose sight of the bigger picture. When I was asked what I thought of the huge boob exposed in prime time, I thought it was a reference to Al Sharpton not knowing what the Federal Reserve was in that candidates&#39; debate. But it turns out instead to be something to do with Janet Jackson. This is a political column, and in the normal course of events some fifth-rate entertainer&#39;s breast awkwardly sticking out from her hideous costume with the nipple poking up through some sort of miniature hub cap would not normally fall within my remit.

    Except that it does. Because the federal government is launching a "thorough" investigation into Janet Jackson&#39;s right breast. "I think the FCC is being pretty silly about investigating this," said Howard Dean, the has-been Vermonter. "I&#39;m probably affected in some ways by the fact that I&#39;m a doctor, so it&#39;s not exactly an unusual phenomenon for me."

    Here&#39;s a sentence I never thought I&#39;d type: I&#39;m with Howard Dean on this one. I hasten to add that, alas, breasts are a more unusual phenomenon for me, but I&#39;m generally all in favor of them: I enjoy them when they turn up on BBC costume dramas and when you&#39;re driving through France enjoying the topography and they pop up on billboards so you can enjoy the topoffgraphy. There&#39;s something to be said for the relaxed Continental approach to nudity. There&#39;s nothing to be said for the hollow joyless mechanical pop culture trash of the Super Bowl show: It was sleazy and worthless when it was fully clothed.

    Nonetheless, I don&#39;t see why we need a government investigation. Unlike Saddam Hussein&#39;s weapons of mass destruction, the existence of Janet Jackson&#39;s breast is not in doubt. We know where it is, there have been verified sightings; we&#39;re not relying on faulty intelligence and grainy satellite imagery. So I agree with Howlin&#39; Howard. No doubt he has personal reasons for not wanting the feds to police these kinds of incidents: It&#39;s easy to picture him on stage that night in Iowa going into his bloodcurdling scream -- "Yeeeaaaaaarrrgghhhhh&#33;" -- and suddenly ripping open his button-down shirt to expose his right breast with a Ben and Jerry&#39;s waffle cone stuck on the nipple. But, whatever the reason, it&#39;s heartening to find a Democratic candidate man enough to identify even one area of government spending as unnecessary.

    What happened after that Super Bowl show? Within hours, Janet Jackson had lost a lucrative TV contract, NBC had excised a Dean-like breast examination from "ER," the NFL announced their Pro Bowl show was dropping some similarly "edgy" half-time entertainment and replacing it with hula dancers and conch blowers, the Grammy Awards telecast decided to go into a play-it-safe time-delay so delayed you&#39;ll be able to tune in and see the Grammy for Best LP go to Herb Alpert and the Tijuana Brass. That&#39;s a lot of fallout. If the Golden Globes hadn&#39;t had the good fortune to have already been broadcast, they would undoubtedly have been panicked into changing their name. And, just to cap it off, a lady in Knoxville, outraged at Justin taking Janet&#39;s top off, is suing the pants off Justin, Janet, CBS, MTV and Viacom. This is the American way: public pressure, commercial calculation, litigation. And it&#39;s amazingly efficient. It&#39;s a classic example of the market&#39;s greatest strength -- its ability to self-correct: By midweek, the bottom had dropped out of network nudity.

    By contrast, what will be accomplished by a government investigation? Eventually, the FCC will issue a ruling and, if we&#39;re lucky, it won&#39;t be quite as ridiculous as their pronouncement on Bono&#39;s recent use of the f-word, which the FCC deemed permissible because he was using it adjectivally. If the point of these FCC investigations is to maintain standards of decency, then clearly they&#39;ve been a colossal flop. As they should be. If the descent of popular culture into a factory-farm freak show is to be reversed, it should be by the people, not by FCC Chairman Michael Powell prancing around in metaphorical knickerbockers and buckled shoes as the Queen&#39;s Lord High Chamberlain.

    Let us now turn from the breast shot heard of around the world to the president&#39;s &#036;2.5 trillion budget. Do you know what a trillion is? Don&#39;t bother. If you buy a calculator from Staples, you can&#39;t get enough zeroes on the screen. But here&#39;s one way to look at it: President Bush plans to blow more of your money in the coming year than the first 25 presidents of the United States spent combined, even after adjusting for inflation. In other words, the budget, like Janet, is bustin&#39; its bodice.

    And, like the investigation by the Federal Nipple Police, most of it&#39;s a waste of time and money. Never mind the president&#39;s sudden generosity toward the National Endowment for the Arts, an agency Republicans once dreamed of abolishing. Did you know that a couple of weeks ago the president signed an &#036;820 billion appropriations bill that, among other boondoggles, puts the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in Cleveland on the public dime? That&#39;s right: rock &#39;n&#39; roll -- the most ruthlessly corporate industry in the world -- apparently requires the tax dollars of America&#39;s widows and spinsters. If every rock star donated just 1 percent of what he&#39;s spent on drugs since 1966, you could have the most lavish Hall of Fame in the world. But he won&#39;t, so you have to pay up instead. One day you&#39;ll swing by and in the Jackson Family exhibit there&#39;ll be an animatronic recreation of Janet&#39;s dancing breast: your tax dollars at work.

    If rock &#39;n&#39; roll requires federal funding, we might as well give up. A government with its fingers in every pie is unlikely to have enough left over for the handful of pies it should have its fingers in. It was summed up by Americans&#39; only glimpse of the president on the morning of 9/11: the commander-in-chief being informed of the first attack on the American mainland in nearly 200 years while he was speaking to grade-schoolers in Florida. That image encapsulates everything that&#39;s wrong with both parties&#39; approach to government.

    As we learned in the days after, because of incompatible computers, the FBI was unable to e-mail pictures of the 9/11 killers to local offices. Yet there&#39;s money for rock &#39;n&#39; roll nostalgia, and an "indoor rain forest" in Iowa. The president should not be the National School Superintendent, the Pharmacist-in-Chief, the Curator of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, or the Inspector-General of Janet Jackson&#39;s Breasts. And, if neither politicians nor the electorate understands that at a time of war, then republican government is doomed.

  13. #13
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    711
    Post Thanks / Like
    Can any devout Republican give me an intelligent definition of the term liberal and use examples of that definition to explain why liberals are bad people.

    The only rule is that you can not use the term liberal on an individual just because that individual differs in opinions with you.

  14. #14
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,407
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by outsider[/i]@Feb 8 2004, 08:36 PM
    [b] Can any devout Republican give me an intelligent definition of the term liberal and use examples of that definition to explain why liberals are bad people.

    The only rule is that you can not use the term liberal on an individual just because that individual differs in opinions with you. [/b][/quote]
    Sure...liberals are, and have proven to be, nothing more then appeasement artists that would sacrifice the security of the nation to be accepted abroad. They capitulate and crumble at the first sign of resistance.

    Examples? Jimmy Carter and Clinton (to a lesser extent).

    They are also hypocrites that say one thing and do another or don&#39;t back up their words..once again sacrificing the security of the homeland if it means coming up against resistance. More examples?

    [b]"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

    "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

    "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq&#39;s weapons of mass destruction program." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

    "Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." --Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

    "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." --Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

    "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq&#39;s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by: -- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

    "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

    "Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." -- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

    "There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by: -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

    "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th&#33; e means of delivering them." -- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

    "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

    "Iraq&#39;s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

    "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

    "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." -- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

    "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

    "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

    "He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" -- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

    "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." -- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

    "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

    "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America&#39;s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003[/b]

    And I&#39;m not a "devout" Republican as I have no qualms of voting for a candidate of another party if I feel he/she would do a better job....can you say the same?

  15. #15
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by outsider[/i]@Feb 8 2004, 07:36 PM
    [b] Can any devout Republican give me an intelligent definition of the term liberal and use examples of that definition to explain why liberals are bad people.

    The only rule is that you can not use the term liberal on an individual just because that individual differs in opinions with you. [/b][/quote]
    Outsider -

    Can you do the same for the word "conservative?"

    There are &#39;good&#39; liberals just as there are &#39;good&#39; conservatives, ditto for the &#39;bad&#39; versions of each.

    But it&#39;s a fun topic so I&#39;ll give it a shot.

    IMO, liberals, in general, are firm, almost the point of being religious, about their belief in the over-riding importence of their own good intentions and good character. I think that they are able to rationalize any policy or position that they support because if this belief in the TOTAL validity of good intentions. "Affirmative action is perfect and has no drawbacks whatsoever because the INTENTION behind it is to help minorities, and how can [i]that[/i] be bad?" Any evidfence whatsopever than runs contrary to that pre-determined conclusion is obviously the work of hateful bigotry, in their mind. Becuase to disbelieve that cardinal truth about affirmative action, or abortion, or gun control, or hatecrime laws, or gay marriage, or ANYTHING else is to disbelieve in the [i]good intention proper[/i], and that, to most liberals, is unacceptable. They are unable to accept the fact that people who disagree with them actually share their belief in the same good intentions, but disagree on process or procedure. Whereas, I feel, in general, conservatives tend to be a little more grounded in reality...at least such is my experience. An outout of this process is the fact that in my mind, I feel that there is just too much moral relativism on the left, as opposed to the right. It is why I think liberal judges tend to be lenient to a fault, as we just saw in the case of that poor little girl in Florida who was killed by a man who certainly should have been locked up.

    I think this this can generally explain why people who are socially conservative tend to be older and most people who are socially liberal tend to be under the age of 30. After you&#39;ve lived a bit, you soon realize that there are just some bad people in this world tho do bad things and those people need to be locked up. Finding out whether or not their daddy yelled at them when they were young or trying to "understand why" they do what they do is an important excercise for academic study, but NO EXCUSE to let them roam free among the very people you are beholden to protect. But, conservatives err on these issues by locking up drug users. So neither side is perfect.

    I think it is generally true that liberals tend to be young and conservatives tend to be old. I don&#39;t think it is a generational thing - I think that people of every generation tend to become more conservative as they mature. People are probably as liberal as they will ever be from 15-25 and then by the time they are 40 are probably to the right of the person that they were at 25.

    Take, for example, this article below. At a BEST CASE scenario for liberals here, this is a case where their narrow good intentions about DDT are too rigid and unflexible to accomodate for the fact that DDT does have some other uses.

    At a worst case scenario, this is evidence of how this addiction to "good intentions" blinds some liberals to the very real fact that their actions have actually made things worse, when that result is in direct contrast to their good intentions.

    [url=http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock.asp]http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock.asp[/url]

    I don&#39;t think this or anything else makes one side "bad" or another side &#39;good.&#39; Conservatives can sometimes be too reluctant to change and sometimes rely on tradition too much as to be a fault. The idea of the &#39;good old days&#39; is specious in a lot of ways, because it seems like every generation thinks the country is "going to hell" and all of them seem to pine for a blissful utopian past that never seems to have existed, IMO.

    I think the two &#39;forces&#39; of conservatism and liberalism are quite nicely complimentary, in a lot of ways. BOTH sides can take them to unnecessary exteremes. The war on drugs, IMO, is an example of a GIGANTIC strategic miscalculation on the part of conservatives and I have no problem at all admitting it.

    The problem today is that neither side listens at all to the other. Instead, a line is drawn in the sand and both sides seem to prefer ridicule to actual discussion.

  16. #16
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    711
    Post Thanks / Like
    Thanks Comeback and 5ever. Those were pretty good responses. I agree with you both that liberals make s**t up as they go along but so do conservatives. It just depends on which side of the fence these guys choose.

    Comeback just so you know I vote for the best candidate in every election. I think the lesser evil scenario is a cop--out because it skirts the issues as both Dems and Reps are out for themselves and not your interests nor mine. I was thoroughly excited about the chances of McCain running for President against a bull**** artist like Gore and his p***y running mate Jew Lieberman. However, I find it thoroughly unacceptable when a candidate like George W. Bush and his camp will go to the extent of making up and spreading rumors that McCain has an illegitimate black kid in North Carolina to sway the polls because let&#39;s face it race and racism still exist.

    McCain was the best man for the job and he got screwed. On Election Day in 2000, I voted for the Green party because I was thoroughly embarrassed that my Presidential Election featured a pair of worthless pussies like Gore and Lieberman vs. the stupidest Yale legacy and a thieving scumbag like Cheney. This election really sucks again because you have a hypocrite like Kerry running against the incumbent idiot.

    I have been called liberal, moderate and even radical when discussing politics with friends. However, I call it like I see it. It&#39;s funny how you guys talk about affirmative action and I agree with you that it sucks ass the way it is handled. However, let&#39;s take a look at the big picture here. It all goes back to hiring the best person for the job. Unfortunately we don&#39;t have that in our society. It all starts at the college level. Minority kids get into schools based on their color but lets not forget the legacies that are complete morons that get in because there Dad or Granddad gave a lot of money to the school. This would not matter if neither the minority nor the spoiled stupid rich kid had to earn their way in to begin with. Just like on Wall Street the Asian guy can fix your computer, the black guy can be your telemarketer and little else unless they gut lucky. Tell me that is not the truth and show me many examples besides the tokens like Dan Nyal or his look-alike at Lehman.

    I think the sad thing is that both political extremes don&#39;t listen to each other and it is a shame because we as a country do have many serious issues that need to be addressed and we would be greater if they were addressed even handedly. 5ever, I agree with you about the DEA and the war on drugs. It is a waste of my tax dollars. There is a lot of waste in other areas as well. However, both sides are really doing the same thing. The Republicans use the race card just like a lowlife Nigger, Kike, or any other slang racial epitaph would. I am referring to those that want handouts and even when they get those hand outs they want more. There are good people that are Black and Jewish and they themselves know what I am talking about. The Democrats sell the same bill of goods that we want to make it fair and make things right. However, it does not take long to figure out that both sides are full of s**t.

    We have serious problems with old people that can&#39;t afford their drugs, schools that are churning out morons from all types of neighborhoods, racism in the work place and a growing deficit. I have talked with both of you guys in the past and I can tell that you hate Bill Clinton. I was not a big Clinton fan myself but he did some things that our present President should do more of and that is to take a good long look at both sides of a discussion and try to find an effective medium. I view Bush as a spoiled stupid rich kid who hides behind God when it is convenient and I think that is just as bad if not worse than promising the world to the masses and then failing to deliver on those promises as the Democrats have done for as long as I can remember.

    As you guys requested my definition of a conservative is someone with a narrow mindset that has tunnel vision. Conservatives stuck in this narrow frame of mind fail to acknowledge others whose opinions are different from theirs. They are not easily swayed as in the case on the war on drugs. Even though, they know it is a ****ing waste of time and tax dollars they continue to piss away our tax dollars. This kind of tunnel vision is troubling because it does not solve problems. That is essentially the same frame of mind that spawned Nazism, and Baathism. There is no coincidence that both failed miserably. Relax, I am not calling God&#39;s President a Nazi or a Baathist as some liberals might compare his kind to. I am just using this as example.

    I know you guys have supported Bush in our past discussions, but just out of curiosity.What has George W. Bush accomplished that will make your life, your kids lives and your parents lives any better?

  17. #17
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,407
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by outsider[/i]@Feb 9 2004, 10:55 AM
    [b] I know you guys have supported Bush in our past discussions, but just out of curiosity.What has George W. Bush accomplished that will make your life, your kids lives and your parents lives any better? [/b][/quote]
    To answer several of your questions as well as the following: there are, have always been and will always be problems in America...anyone who says otherwise is a fool. And while our political system is far from perfect it is still the best out there.

    I recently spoke with Graeme Edge, he is the drummer for the Moody Blues who now lives in Florida. He told me he loves the political scene in America as people and politicians can battle it out and make a difference, unlike England where most politicians are just figure heads.

    Now your answer about the President; what has he done? To my mind he&#39;s taken on the difficult task of facing America&#39;s enemies head on and while you think he&#39;s full of sh&#33;t I firmly believe he&#39;s truthful about the present situation; I believed it prior 9/11 and sadly knew it would take an attack of that magnitude for people to wake up and realize how many in the world-especially Islamists- are serious about killing Americans. Unfortunately 9/11 was a wake-up call for too many and several still refuse to believe the threat.

    Instead of sitting in his Oval office talking a good game (even while the US was being attacked) I feel GWB is doing the right thing, which always comes with second guessing and criticism. As with anything there will be short term pain and people screaming for instant gratification but that was always going to be the case.
    Getting a foothold in a place like Iraq, working to bring democracy there (no matter how long it may take) will better serve the middle east and also help protect America.

  18. #18
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    711
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Come Back to NY[/i]@Feb 9 2004, 11:25 AM
    [b] Now your answer about the President; what has he done? To my mind he&#39;s taken on the difficult task of facing America&#39;s enemies head on and while you think he&#39;s full of sh&#33;t I firmly believe he&#39;s truthful about the present situation; I believed it prior 9/11 and sadly knew it would take an attack of that magnitude for people to wake up and realize how many in the world-especially Islamists- are serious about killing Americans. Unfortunately 9/11 was a wake-up call for too many and several still refuse to believe the threat.

    [/b][/quote]
    Comeback I appreciate your response. However, I would really like to hear your theory about Islamists wanting to kill Americans and freedom in the Middle East. I think I can learn a lot about how you see Islamist on the whole. Furthermore, how do you define Islamists as a whole?

  19. #19
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    Outsider -

    Good response. The dig about Nazism is pretty low, however. Aren&#39;t you the guy who tried to make a comparison to the fact that Hitler was a "Republican?"

    I am all for guys such as yourself who extoll the vitrues of political independence and who "call it how they see it." However, judging by your posts, I suspect that you have deep-seated politival biases that you either 1) don&#39;t enjoy admitting or 2) sincerely believe don&#39;t exist.

    Either way, you are hardly non-partisan, IMO.

    (There&#39;s nothing wrong with it - we all have them. I fully admit to being partial to the GOP over ther Dems. Guilty as charged...what can I do? I can either admit it or lie about it)

    Anyways, good stuff. As always, you write well and offer interesting viewpoints.

  20. #20
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,407
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by outsider+Feb 9 2004, 11:32 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (outsider @ Feb 9 2004, 11:32 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Come Back to NY[/i]@Feb 9 2004, 11:25 AM
    [b] Now your answer about the President; what has he done? To my mind he&#39;s taken on the difficult task of facing America&#39;s enemies head on and while you think he&#39;s full of sh&#33;t I firmly believe he&#39;s truthful about the present situation; I believed it prior 9/11 and sadly knew it would take an attack of that magnitude for people to wake up and realize how many in the world-especially Islamists- are serious about killing Americans. Unfortunately 9/11 was a wake-up call for too many and several still refuse to believe the threat.

    [/b][/quote]
    Comeback I appreciate your response. However, I would really like to hear your theory about Islamists wanting to kill Americans and freedom in the Middle East. I think I can learn a lot about how you see Islamist on the whole. Furthermore, how do you define Islamists as a whole?[/b][/quote]
    I use the term "Islamist", the better term to use is "Wahabi" if you know what they are; a very extreme and radical form of the muslim religion. Their principle is simple and is one that we&#39;ve seen in word and action; if you are not a muslim you are an infidel. If you are an infidel you must be killed; you know what ethnic cleansing is? This is nothing more than religious cleansing.

    Why do they want to kill Americans? First, they&#39;ve been brainwashed to believe we (America) are the cause of ALL their ills, regardless of how corrupt their systems are.

    Second; they hate all our values; freedom, equality (or as close to it as you can get) and the fact that were are not, for lack of a better term, pious 24-hours a day. We are the head of the infidel beast and if you can kill off the head the rest will follow. This has been documented as their belief, again in both word and action.

    How will freedom/democracy improve the situation? Just look at history; whether Nazi-Germany or communist-Russia; democracy brings plurality in all forms (politics/religious/economic/etc) and when there is that type of plurality there is a reduced chance of extremism which lends to a reduced possibility of people gravitating towards murderous dictators/terrorists/leaders.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us