Disgusted with Republicans again.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hack said: "The bush administration is putting out stuff I don't think they believe true to scare as many people as possible into rallying around the president.
Societal Coersion using a basic human instinct.
If the administration's claims are knowingly based on falsehood the term Social Engineering seems fitting indeed with or without laws attached.
If this warning is based on the administration's actual beliefs we may find ourselves truly screwed as they would seem way too ready to clamp down for any whim, logical or not.
I don't think the admin believes their own spin and this is sheep herding.
I'm done."


Ok chicken little, the sky is NOT falling. I really think more than a few people here don't really know how this Govt works. OK, lets walk thru this, on 9/11/01, 11 terrorists hijacked some jetliners and flew 2 into the twin towers, one into the Pentagon, one got ditched by the heroic efforts of some great Americans. Thousands of innocent Americans were killed in horrific ways. The days and weeks that followed the majority of this Nation cried for blood and rightly so. We had been attacked on our own home soil, as never before , EVER. More so than Pearl Harbor. So Pres Bush took it to Congress(which is american policy) to get their permission to go to war(per American policy). Congress then holds a hearing on all ALL intelligence from the Pentagon, the FBI CIA and various other agencies, but, THIS WHOLE COUNTRY WAS IN SHOCK and knew that we had to take action. Then Congress votes and decides whether to go to war or not. If they so decide it's then handed over to the Pentagon and the military, where they do what they're paid and trained to do, go to war. In case some haven't noticed , the miliatry learned as soon as they went after Bin laden, that the middle east people were tight knit and part of their success is to not let any foreigner in their group. That should have been a clue, as now the CIA admits that they didn't have actual bodies in these groups ever since UN weapons inspectors were kicked out, so they didn't have first hand intel, but they had 2nd hand intel and in 9/21/01, that was good enough. Sure hindsight is 20/20, woulda, coulda, shoulda, we still did the right thing. This is war on terroroism, wherever it lives. Iraq had terrorist training camps, that was enough. we knew sadm had WMD, 'cause we gave them to him when we put him in charge to fight Russia on Afgan, but he used them on the Kurds instead. Bush was almost obligated to help Iraq rebuild, 'cause his Dad pulled out on them and they didn't trust Jr, but he gained their trust and is doing a hellofa job, imo. Now, so noone is surprised, we might just mosey on into Syria and Egypt, 'cause they're harboring terrorists too. Now, if anyone sees it differently , I'm sure you'll speak up.
 
Gene,



I see your last as misdirection due to an inability to sufficiently justify administration actions in a direct rebuttal.
My reasoning for bailing on republicans is as stated and I see no need for repeat of any comment but one.

Many people understand that megalomaniacal lunacy has hijacked the democratic party.
I see that same process at work in the republican.

That comment will serve as answer to your Federalist papers post.
I think you may well have good intentions but republican ideology is in transition and is being replaced with something I can no longer tolerate.

Justification and misdirection can't hide that slap in the face to those of us who've been lifelong republicans.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hack, sufficiency is in the eye of the beholder. To some no reason will do , to others no reason is necessary.
 
Gene I believe you totally missed the point Justin tried to make. Bush is WAY too liberal. I consider it very unfortunate that he is all we have. I plan to vote for the man, but I'm not swilling the Bush kool-aid. Your "defense" of his policies displays a fundamental lack of understanding of the issues Justin brings up and serves no purpose whatsoever. Respectfully suggest that you google "largest expansion of medicare in history" and do a little reading. We're NOT talking about the health plans of govt workers here.
 
Coolhandluke said: "That's a myth.

Illegals are working in jobs like trucking, auto mechanics, skilled construction trades, meatpacking, heavy equipment operations, small businesses, etc. They are displacing American workers in huge numbers from what used to be very well paying jobs.

Bush's strong advocacy of an open border immigration policy towards Mexico is one of the primary reasons I won't be voting for him again."


No, all THAT is a myth. I lived Arizona for a couple of years and Cali for 6 yrs and Florida here for 10 yearsand can say INS is all over companies that hire illegals, not to mention insurance companies and unions. Almost all trades now one must prove citizenship and be certified. DoT and DMV and Teamsters checks truckers, USDA and MPU checks meatpackers. Heavy equipment? Forgettaboutit, they have to be more certified than truckers. I'm in the construction trade and I can tell ya NO contractor that wants to stay in business long will allow illegals on the job. Same with small business. Sure there may be a few companies that hire a few illegals, but most the illegals I've seen are migrant workers who slave in the fields planting and gathering our food and clean our houses and care for our lawns.
 
For me, the only issue in the upcomming election is the appointment of SCOTUS justices. Ginsberg, Scalia, and Rhenquist have all talked about retiring, but Rhenquist has stated that he will not retire while GWB is president. It's 6 eggs on one hand and half a dozen on the other. If Kerry gets elected, he will appoint judges that are anti-gun, but possibly pro civil rights. If Bush gets elected, he will appoint judges that are anti civil rights, but possibly pro gun. My own prediction is that Kerry will win, but it won't make a difference in terms of policy. Except that the 1994 AWB will sunset long enough for those of us will money to get what we want. I am taking out massive student loans to make sure that I get what I want....
 
Art Eatman hit it right on the head. Perot got us Clinton, Nader got us GWB.
I would love to be a republican 100% but I can't be because GWB has done some pretty un-republican things, and I don't think we want to teach the republicans that the way to power is to be just like the Dem-o-rats.

Hack I live in upstate NY too. I'm going to vote NADER. GWB has 2 chances to take NY slim, and none. BUT I can help the cause of the lesser of two evils. If Nader gets a larger % of the vote this time he will continue to SPLIT the dems, help us get more conservative pols elected.

IF you live in ANY state that is going strongly for either Bush or Kerry vote NADER, encourage him. IF you live in a "battleground" state where the vote wil lbe close vote Bush
 
Fix, ya mean this one? S.2328
Pharmaceutical Market Access and Drug Safety Act of 2004 (Introduced in Senate)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds that--

(1) Americans unjustly pay up to 5 times more to fill their prescriptions than consumers in other countries;

(2) the United States is the largest market for pharmaceuticals in the world, yet American consumers pay the highest prices for brand pharmaceuticals in the world;

(3) a prescription drug is neither safe nor effective to an individual who cannot afford it;

(4) allowing and structuring the importation of prescription drugs to ensure access to safe and affordable drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration will provide a level of safety to American consumers that they do not currently enjoy;

(5) American seniors alone will spend $1,800,000,000,000 on pharmaceuticals over the next 10 years; and

(6) allowing open pharmaceutical markets could save American consumers at least $38,000,000,000 each year.
 
This is the one I am talking about. With all due respect, if you were not aware of this monstrosity, then you honestly do not have a sufficient knowledge of the issues to defend Bush's actions here. Again, I do not mean this to be disrespectful. I want to see the President re-elected too, but mainly because the alternative is so offensive to me. You will do the campaign a disservice by arguing on their behalf without a strong grasp of the issues. Please don't take offense. We're on the same side. I'm just suggesting to you that Bush has in fact done some things that are absolutely indefensible. You should accept that and move on. No need to waste time trying to defend these actions.

Edit: Art, I promise to take anything further to PM.
 
This is war on terroroism, wherever it lives. Iraq had terrorist training camps, that was enough. we knew sadm had WMD, 'cause we gave them to him when we put him in charge to fight Russia on Afgan,


This just ain't so.

At no time did the US ever provide WMD's of any kind to Iraq. It never happened. US assistance to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war consisted of Satellite imagery only. The rest is a fantasy cooked up in the sick mind of hardline anti-American Communist academics like Noam Chomsky.

Saddam Hussein and Iraq played no role whatsoever in ousting the Soviets from Afghanistan. US assistance to the Mujahadeen was channeled through Pakastani Army Intelligence. No US assistance whatsoever went to Bin Laden at any time.

The US did not create the Taliban. The Taliban was formed 10 years after the US ceased to have any significant role in Afghanistan prior to the invasion in 2002.
 
IF you live in ANY state that is going strongly for either Bush or Kerry vote NADER,

Bad idea. It would be much wiser for American gun owners to vote for the Libertarian Party or Constitution Party candidates under those circumstances.

Nader is a gun grabber to the core and would gladly see every gun manufacturer sued out of existance.

Voting for the Libertarian party or Constitution Party would be much more beneficial as both are very strongly pro-Second Amendment.

encourage him. IF you live in a "battleground" state where the vote wil lbe close vote Bush

Bush has moved so far to the left that this is getting harder and harder to support every day.
 
How is expanding Govt health care (I'm assuming you're talkin about expanding the health care benefits of govt employees)?

What Justin might have been referring to was not the importation bill but the $400 (now well over 540 and counting) Prescription Drug giveaway for Seniors. Do I need to explain to you how redistribution works and why it’s socialistic?


assault weapons-war on terrorism, times are different now.

On Sept 11th, the day that kicked off this “war†those guys used box-cutters, so why the focus on assault weapons?

Please explain to me why passing laws against assault-weapons, a pledge which Bush made long before Sept 11th, is going to prevent someone from getting one by illegal means. I’m sure you know that the difference between “assault-weapons†and rifles currently considered kosher are in cosmetic appearance, so what good will “regulation†do?

I’d also like to know how you intend to “regulate†assault weapons, perhaps counting box-cutters, without violating the 2nd amendment.



How is taxing imported steel socialistic?

Those tariffs were put in place for the sole reason to protect the steel industry, which means that Americans who are in steel consuming industries as well as end users will now have to pay higher prices to benefit one specific group.
 
Amnesty for illegal aliens is actually more of a libertarian position than a socialist one.


The net effect of Bush's "open-border" immigration policy will be to create about 20 million new US Citizens and legal resident aliens, of which all will instantly be eligable for every "transfer of wealth" social program that the State and Federal governments can mandate.

In other words, a bigger piece of my property (my money) is to be taken from me and will be spent on if not directly given to Mexican citizens who, as per President Bush, would now living in the US legally.

Sure sound a lot like Socialisim to me.

I am already paying well over half of my income to the Government (Federal, State, and local) in taxes. Bush is now telling me that he thinks it's a good idea to take even more from me in order to elevate the life of they typical Mexican peasant. Any income tax break I might have gotten from Bush will be more than offset by increased State taxes needed to provide services to the illegal Mexican immigrants Bush wants to legalize.

No way am I voting for Bush again. No more votes for Liberal Republican RINO's.
 
And then there's this: That's why AARP is supporting S. 2328, the bipartisan bill sponsored by Senators Byron Dorgan (D-ND) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and 22 cosponsors, that would legalize the safe importation of prescription drugs from other countries, beginning with Canada.

Surely , if any of you have parents or grandparents that subscribe to the AARP, they are a viscious no nonsense group and if they support it, well, it their dime.
 
This just ain't so.

At no time did the US ever provide WMD's of any kind to Iraq. It never happened. US assistance to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war consisted of Satellite imagery only. The rest is a fantasy cooked up in the sick mind of hardline anti-American Communist academics like Noam Chomsky.

Saddam Hussein and Iraq played no role whatsoever in ousting the Soviets from Afghanistan. US assistance to the Mujahadeen was channeled through Pakastani Army Intelligence. No US assistance whatsoever went to Bin Laden at any time.

The US did not create the Taliban. The Taliban was formed 10 years after the US ceased to have any significant role in Afghanistan prior to the invasion in 2002.

umm. What brand of Kool-Aid are you drinking? Where can I get some? I gotta tell you, my box wine is pretty strong but not that strong. Oh wait, lemme guess; you're a party whore.
 
MacViolinist, trot out the rebuttals. Simply accusing someone of being a party hack won't cut it.
 
Cool Hand... Nader got something like 2% of the vote last time. He has 0% chance of winning anything. BUT that 2% came from voters who otherwise would have voted for Gore.

Libertarian party or Constitution Parties voters are much more likely to be folks who would otherwise vote republican...just as Perot slpit the vote in 1992 and gave us Clinton.

The goal for those of us who live in states where the vote will not be close is to try and keep splitting the left leaning vote.

I am not big fan of GWB, but until the republicans come up with another Ronald Ragan, we will just have to play the cards we got
 
The net effect of Bush's "open-border" immigration policy will be to create about 20 million new US Citizens and legal resident aliens, of which all will instantly be eligable for every "transfer of wealth" social program that the State and Federal governments can mandate.

If implemented, this would be a cultural and economic disaster. I don't know the current status of this plan. I thought GWB 'floated' it for awhile, then it was shot down.
 
Riley,

It reared it's ugly head again last week while Bush was out pandering to some Hispanic group. I've heard it compared to "holding a fundraising dinner at a homeless shelter."
 
Cool Hand... Nader got something like 2% of the vote last time. He has 0% chance of winning anything. BUT that 2% came from voters who otherwise would have voted for Gore.

No, not so. Nader drew much more evenly from the Democrat and Republican vote totals.

Libertarian party or Constitution Parties voters are much more likely to be folks who would otherwise vote republican...just as Perot slpit the vote in 1992 and gave us Clinton.

No, Bush senior gave us Clintoon by reneging on his "Read my lips,No new taxes" pledge.

When conservative voters shift their support to the Constitution or Libertarian Party they send a strong message to the Republicans that the leftward "march of the RINO's led by Bush II has cost them.

Voting for the Constitution or Libertarian candidate also gains them public awareness that would be beneficial in future elections.

The goal for those of us who live in states where the vote will not be close is to try and keep splitting the left leaning vote.

Again, you are not somehow splitting the leftist vote by voting for Nader in the general election. All you are doing is subtracting from the vote total that a pro-second amendment candidate from the Constitution Party or Libertarian party would have gotten.

Again, the only way that your vote for Nader could "split" the leftist vote would be if you were a leftist to begin with and are voting for Nader instead of Kerry.
 
RileyMc:

If implemented, this would be a cultural and economic disaster. I don't know the current status of this plan. I thought GWB 'floated' it for awhile, then it was shot down.


Bush reiterated his support for this plan in a speech to Hispanic voters just yesterday.
 
MacViolinist:

umm. What brand of Kool-Aid are you drinking? Where can I get some? I gotta tell you, my box wine is pretty strong but not that strong. Oh wait, lemme guess; you're a party whore


Too bad you can't offer anything more substantial in the way of a rebuttal than some lame, cowardly personal attack.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top