Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Used to be GOP, but now I'm free

Bush GOP Reagan Politics-American

  • Please log in to reply
53 replies to this topic

#21 Robert Hewitt Wolfe

Robert Hewitt Wolfe
  • Demigod
  • 2,247 posts

Posted 06 July 2004 - 08:54 PM

Delvo, on Jul 7 2004, 01:45 AM, said:

Quote

If only McCain had won the nomination!!!!!

But, if you believe the propaganda, he was doomed from the start - labeled "Uncontrollable" by the "Shadow Organization" that runs the GOP.

He was doomed from the start because he keeps working against Republicans and for Democrats.
No, he was doomed from the start because he kept working for the American people and following his conscience and politics be damned.  I don't always agree with McCain, but I would never question his integrity.

Edited by Robert Hewitt Wolfe, 06 July 2004 - 08:54 PM.

"There are monsters, there are angels...
There's a peacefulness and a rage inside us all."
----------------------------------
Voice of the Beehive


#22 schoolpsycho

schoolpsycho
  • Islander
  • 893 posts

Posted 06 July 2004 - 09:03 PM

Hi, Robert....

***I don't always agree with McCain, but I would never question his integrity.***

But I am dissappointed. He's with Bush, after Bush went after him in 2000.

I'm sorry, but it just makes me sick, and further reinforces why I'll never support any politician.

sp
Love is hard...and all there is.

#23 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 06 July 2004 - 09:26 PM

Robert Hewitt Wolfe, on Jul 6 2004, 07:52 PM, said:

No, he was doomed from the start because he kept working for the American people and following his conscience and politics be damned.
For him, as with for most liberals & Democrats, that could very well be the same thing as working for the Democrats and against the Republicans. I never said he didn't truly believe in the stuff he fought for; I just said it has too much of a tendency to go against the party he's supposedly in and with the opposition party, for him to have won his party's nomination.

Quote

I don't always agree with McCain, but I would never question his integrity.
I didn't either.

#24 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 06 July 2004 - 10:21 PM

MuseZack, on Jul 7 2004, 01:18 AM, said:

Which is meaningless.  Even under dictatorships (and no, I'm not saying we live under a dictatorship), most people get left alone if they stay out of trouble
Yes that is true and how does creating trouble make for your rights to be taken away. I mean if you commit rape are you not suppose to be put into prison? or rob at gun pont someone is not charging the person with a crime the right thing to do?

So it's Bush's fault? Damm him for arranging those planes to run into the WTC dang we should just go back to the way it was before not do a thing to try and prevent the disaster from happening again.

Am I afraid for the GOvernment hell yes but I was before Bush . I do not put anything on a site or in print I do not care if someone somehow reads. The thoughts in my head are mine and mine alone to share or not share.

So if the new passport stops a Terrorists from entering the country or commiting his murder(s) I am happy. It costs more well I guess I will need to pay for it when I leave the country.
If you encounter any Trolls. You really must not forget them.
And if you want to save these shores. For Pity sake Don't Trust them.
paraphrased from H. "Breaker" Morant

TANSTAAFL
If you voted for Obama then all the mistakes he makes are your fault and I will point this out to you every time he does mess up.

When the fall is all that remains. It matters a great deal.

All hail the clich's all emcompassing shadow.

My playing well with other's skill has been vastly overrated

Member of the Order of the Knigths of the Woeful Countance.

#25 DWF

DWF

    Dr. Who 1963-89, 1996, 2005-

  • Islander
  • 48,287 posts

Posted 06 July 2004 - 10:44 PM

Quote

So it's Bush's fault? Damm him for arranging those planes to run into the WTC dang we should just go back to the way it was before not do a thing to try and prevent the disaster from happening again.

They tried to destroy the WTC in 1993, nothing prevented them from actually destroying the towers in 2001.  :eh:
The longest-running science fiction series: decadent, degenerate and rotten to the core. Power-mad conspirators, Daleks, Sontarans... Cybermen! They're still in the nursery compared to us. Fifty years of absolute fandom. That's what it takes to be really critical.

"Don't mistake a few fans bitching on the Internet for any kind of trend." - Keith R.A. DeCandido

#26 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 06 July 2004 - 11:03 PM

1993 hhmmmm Who was in office at that time? No it could not be the great and all powerful kind and merciful Bill "God on earth" Clinton Say it ain't so? That would mean he did nothing. Nothing at all for 7 years to even start on making changes?
If you encounter any Trolls. You really must not forget them.
And if you want to save these shores. For Pity sake Don't Trust them.
paraphrased from H. "Breaker" Morant

TANSTAAFL
If you voted for Obama then all the mistakes he makes are your fault and I will point this out to you every time he does mess up.

When the fall is all that remains. It matters a great deal.

All hail the clich's all emcompassing shadow.

My playing well with other's skill has been vastly overrated

Member of the Order of the Knigths of the Woeful Countance.

#27 Gefiltefishmon

Gefiltefishmon

    Oolong Caluphids Private Secretary

  • Islander
  • 789 posts

Posted 06 July 2004 - 11:51 PM

Quote

And no intelligence source has ever seriously claimed there were no Iraq-AQ links, either, not that it would matter since Bush never claimed that as a reason for the war, and the 9/11 Commission's report, which certainly doesn't come from a group that could be called pro-Bush at all, says that the links were indeed there.

I beg to differ.

From CNN

Quote

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Disputing anew an assertion by the Bush administration, the independent commission investigating the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, released a statement Tuesday indicating that it stands by its conclusion that al Qaeda and Iraq had only limited connections.

"After examining available transcripts of [Vice President Dick Cheney's] public remarks, the 9/11 commission believes it has access to the same information the vice president has seen regarding contacts between al Qaeda and Iraq prior to the 9/11 attacks," the commission said in a written statement.

That statement comes in the wake of an interview Cheney gave last month on CNBC. During that interview, Cheney said "we don't know" whether Iraq was involved in the attacks. Asked whether he had information the panel did not, the vice president said, "Probably."

After Cheney's statement on CNBC, the commission asked the vice president to come forward with any additional information he could provide about any ties between al Qaeda and Iraq.

One Cheney aide who spoke on condition of anonymity dismissed Tuesday's commission statement, calling it a "nonstory."

The commission has said it has seen no evidence to suggest that then-Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's government was involved in the attacks, which killed nearly 3,000 people.

In a report released last month, the commission concluded that though there were numerous contacts in the 1990s between Iraq and al Qaeda, those contacts did not result in a "collaborative relationship."

Last month, Cheney accused news outlets of distorting the commission's findings to portray them as contradicting statements that administration officials made in the months before the invasion of Iraq.

Alleged ties between Iraq and al Qaeda were a main reason the administration gave for going to war.

Cheney also said recently that the United States has never been able to "knock down" an uncorroborated Czech report that September 11 plot leader Mohamed Atta met with an Iraqi intelligence agent in Prague, Czech Republic, before the attacks.

The commission said it doesn't believe such a meeting ever took place.

Seems pretty straightforward to me - the investigating commitee found the truth - but of course, it's not really the truth if it disputes what the Administration says, right? I mean it couldn't be at all that the Administration is lying, could it? NO, it has to be some vast liberal media/government/intelligencia conspiracy to bring down GWB.....

Anyway - I think I've settled it - and Thanks to everyone!

I hate him and it's rational.
"To know that you do not know is the best. To act from the pretense that you know when you do not know is a disease" - Lao Tzu

"From All, One; and From One, All" - Heraclitus

"Let me be clear: however the world's goblet turns there will always be those drunk on the wine of the Self" - Ghalib

"A 'politically savvy challenge to evolution' is as self-evidently ridiculous as an agriculturally savvy challenge to euclidean geometry would be." - Charles Pierce

#28 Nietrick

Nietrick

    Sprinkling the pixie dust of insanity

  • Islander
  • 81 posts

Posted 06 July 2004 - 11:57 PM

I am also disgusted at the feeling of having to vote for the lesser evil. Politics has become just a game of one upsmanship between the parties and has little to do with the people of this country. And they all wonder why voter turn out is so low.

Quite frankly,my reasons for not being pleased with Bush have far more to do with his trying to please dissenters by backing down verbally from things he already said than anything having to do with the war. WMDs? I can't believe the cynical and conspiracy minded US public actually believes that the president would outright lie without magically being able to produce tons and tons of proof. The fact that the proof is coming in a little at a time lends creedance to the claims.
Life is a jest and all things show it,I thought so once and now I know it!

"Deja vu just ain't what it used to be."

#29 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 07 July 2004 - 06:38 AM

Gefiltefishmon, on Jul 6 2004, 10:49 PM, said:

I beg to differ.

From CNN

Quote

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Disputing anew an assertion by the Bush administration, the independent commission investigating the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, released a statement Tuesday indicating that it stands by its conclusion that al Qaeda and Iraq had only limited connections.
You didn't differ. You quoted an article that acknowledges the existence of limited connections. Differing would have yielded an article saying there were none.

That's the funny thing about this particular claim. The Administration's case didn't have anything to do with a direct link between the two organizations, much less a tremendous, deep, strong one. But Democrats keep trying to convince everyone it did, AND that there are no connections at all, both of which are false, while the second is also irrelevant because of the first one's falsehood. But it's supposed to be the Bush Administration who lied. :sarcasm: These people lie so compulsively that they even made up this extraneous one about there being "no" connections for no reason. If they were to focus on the connections not being very strong instead of denying their existence completely, that would be harder to defend against, but this crowd is so allergic to truth they just can't come near it even when it would benefit them.

#30 QueenTiye

QueenTiye

    Behavior is not reproducible over multiple trials.

  • Islander
  • 24,316 posts

Posted 07 July 2004 - 02:53 PM

Robert Hewitt Wolfe, on Jul 6 2004, 01:38 PM, said:

In my heart of hearts, I'd really rather vote Republican than Democrat... hell, I'm pretty well off, so in my pocketbook I feel the same way... but I can't stomach the GOP these days.  What the hell happened to the party of Reagan?   :(
Interesting statement... do you feel that being well off predisposes one toward being a Republican in this country?

Een Draght Mackt Maght


#31 QueenTiye

QueenTiye

    Behavior is not reproducible over multiple trials.

  • Islander
  • 24,316 posts

Posted 07 July 2004 - 02:55 PM

HubcapDave, on Jul 6 2004, 04:49 PM, said:

:eek4:

Please tell me what document gives us rights as "citizens of the world"? I haven't seen that one.
which document takes them away? ;)

Een Draght Mackt Maght


#32 Cardie

Cardie

    I'm a very *good* tailor

  • Administrator
  • 22,634 posts

Posted 07 July 2004 - 03:10 PM

There was a column a couple of weeks ago by David Brooks, the New York Times' relatively conservative op-ed writer, and he said some interesting things about wealth, education, and political affiliation in this country.  (Of course I can't find the link right now, but I'll keep looking.)

Edit: It's here, but unfortunately only available if purchased:

http://query.nytimes.....avid%20Brooks

Anyway, his take was that you could look at people of comparable affluence and education--the "elites" as he calls them-- and where they would divide was that professionals who dealt with product and its management (corporate execs, engineers, R&D specialists, etc.) tended to be conservatives and value pragmatism and problem solving in politicians, whereas the professionals who dealt more with ideas and information (academics, journalists, writers, artists, doctors [not sure about that, but he included them]) tended to be liberals and to value theoretical sophistication and clear enunciation of ideas in their politicians.

He was saying this to disprove the assumed dichotomy that the wealthy and educated would go with the Republicans while the regular working stiffs would be Democrats.

Cardie

Edited by Cardie, 07 July 2004 - 03:14 PM.

Nothing succeeds like excess.

#33 QueenTiye

QueenTiye

    Behavior is not reproducible over multiple trials.

  • Islander
  • 24,316 posts

Posted 07 July 2004 - 03:39 PM

Thank you! :)

Een Draght Mackt Maght


#34 DWF

DWF

    Dr. Who 1963-89, 1996, 2005-

  • Islander
  • 48,287 posts

Posted 07 July 2004 - 03:45 PM

G1223, on Jul 7 2004, 12:01 AM, said:

1993 hhmmmm Who was in office at that time? No it could not be the great and all powerful kind and merciful Bill "God on earth" Clinton Say it ain't so? That would mean he did nothing. Nothing at all for 7 years to even start on making changes?
Don't forget they failed in 1993 and I know I was MUCH better off in 1993 than I am now. Our business at work is so slow because nobody wants to build and it's been that way for a while now, things weren't like that back when Clinton was in office, we were EXCEPTIONALLY busy in those eight years. Once Bush got in office even our yearly raises stopped coming, I got one this year, but it'd been two years since my last one. :glare:
The longest-running science fiction series: decadent, degenerate and rotten to the core. Power-mad conspirators, Daleks, Sontarans... Cybermen! They're still in the nursery compared to us. Fifty years of absolute fandom. That's what it takes to be really critical.

"Don't mistake a few fans bitching on the Internet for any kind of trend." - Keith R.A. DeCandido

#35 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 07 July 2004 - 05:02 PM

Handmaiden07, on Jul 7 2004, 01:51 PM, said:

Interesting statement... do you feel that being well off predisposes one toward being a Republican in this country?
It depends on where somebody draws the line between those who are and those who aren't. If you made a graph of likelihood of being Republican based on wealth, you'd find it going up throughout the range of incomes that most people deal with; for example, somebody who earns $200,000 per year is much more likely to be Republican than somebody who earns $20,000. But somewhere in the millions, the trend reverses and that line graph would go back down again, so that even though the "normal rich" or "low rich" are predominantly Republican, the "super ultra rich" are predominantly Democrat. (Think of the stereotypes of the liberal Hollywooder and the conservative "business tycoon"; the bigger money by far is in entertainment industry, with its big names' wealth dwarfing that of almost any CEO or business owner.) This year's Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates are a good example; they're all "rich", but the two Republicans' net worths combined ($50M+$15M) are just a bit less than Edwards's alone ($70M), and Edwards's is somewhere around a fifteenth of Kerry's (over a billion). For that matter, while writing that, I just noticed that these four men line up neatly in the same order along both financial and political spectra:
Kerry: richest one, rated most liberal Senator
Edwards: second richest one, rated 4th most liberal Senator
Bush: closer to Edwards than any other two are, but less, and a political mix
Cheney: the least rich, and the most consistently conservative

But, like I said, people that rich are such a small fraction of the overall population that the rule that being wealthier means being more likely to be conservative and/or Republican does hold true for most people in the less-than-millions range.

#36 Ogami

Ogami
  • Islander
  • 2,976 posts

Posted 07 July 2004 - 07:22 PM

Gefilte wrote:

Do people around the world really SEE GWB this way?

I will give the Irish protesters the benefit of a doubt and assume that a large part of their protesting has to do with resentment of America's economic and military power. I doubt most Cultured European Progressives (cough) have more than a cursory knowledge of the current American president, beyond what fits on Greenpeace protest signs.

-Ogami

#37 Ogami

Ogami
  • Islander
  • 2,976 posts

Posted 07 July 2004 - 07:33 PM

Chaddee wrote:

Because under GWB's watch I am seeing rights eroded for the americans.

Nonsense, back up that claim with a single fact. There has not been a wholesale rounding up and incarceration of Arab-Americans, as was hysterically shrieked by the left. Anti-Bush publications, ranging from Bush-bashing books to Moore's anti-documentary, have not been banned by the government. Having to wait in an airport line hardly qualifies as a concentration camp.

Matter of fact, the focus of the 9/11 Commission's questioning of Bush administration officials was on why the provisions of the Patriot Act weren't enacted sooner, not enacted at all.

Because under GWB's watch I am losing my right as a citizen of this world to visit part of it without incurring aditional costs in both time, and money (biometric passports or spending a day aquiring a ridiculously expensive visa).

Expensive VISAs, that diabolical Bush! Does Halliburton get a cut on these?

Because under GWB's watch I am hearing proposals that are so against the 'green' in me that it makes me sick. (drilling in the rockies? drilling in the alaskan oil reserves? heck, Kyoto anyone?).

Drilling in the rockies and alaskan wildlife refuges would free America from a dependence on foreign oil. With the absence of America's wallet, the middle east would have a lot less money to fund despotic regimes and terrorist networks. And for those who weren't paying attention, the United States Senate voted 98-0 against ratifying the Kyoto Accords when Bill Clinton was president. Oops!

Oh, and for the record, you don't have to be pro Saddam et all to be against Bush

Then why does Saddam have the same precise complaints about Bush that the anti-war left does?

That's not a far stretch. After all, we're told Saddam is the elected president of Iraq, while Bush is the un-elected illegal president, right? Saddam, the poor victim of the evil of Bush.  :whistle:

-Ogami

#38 Ogami

Ogami
  • Islander
  • 2,976 posts

Posted 07 July 2004 - 07:36 PM

Nietrick wrote:

I am also disgusted at the feeling of having to vote for the lesser evil.

Vote for the Reverend Sharpton. At the very least, he's not as dull as these other guys.

If Kerry had picked Sharpton as his running mate, he would have gotten my vote. Just for the entertainment value alone.

-Ogami

#39 Gefiltefishmon

Gefiltefishmon

    Oolong Caluphids Private Secretary

  • Islander
  • 789 posts

Posted 07 July 2004 - 10:10 PM

Quote

If Kerry had picked Sharpton as his running mate, he would have gotten my vote. Just for the entertainment value alone.

:D ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!
"To know that you do not know is the best. To act from the pretense that you know when you do not know is a disease" - Lao Tzu

"From All, One; and From One, All" - Heraclitus

"Let me be clear: however the world's goblet turns there will always be those drunk on the wine of the Self" - Ghalib

"A 'politically savvy challenge to evolution' is as self-evidently ridiculous as an agriculturally savvy challenge to euclidean geometry would be." - Charles Pierce

#40 Aurelius

Aurelius

    Master of the Empire

  • Islander
  • 803 posts

Posted 08 July 2004 - 06:25 PM

Ogami, on Jul 8 2004, 12:20 AM, said:

Gefilte wrote:

Do people around the world really SEE GWB this way?

I will give the Irish protesters the benefit of a doubt and assume that a large part of their protesting has to do with resentment of America's economic and military power. I doubt most Cultured European Progressives (cough) have more than a cursory knowledge of the current American president, beyond what fits on Greenpeace protest signs.

-Ogami
Speaking as an  Irish person who, while not a protester, opposed George Bush's visit (on reasons other than the war), I'm hugely amused by this assumption. Mainly because it's so far off the mark it's not within shouting distance.

Ireland is a small country, with NO military ambitions other than defence. I'd say the vast majority of Irish people would have no wish for a huge military, such as that of the U.S.

And as for resenting American economic power, again untrue. The Irish economy is stronger than it has been for decades. The average Irish person is more worried about losing his job to an Eastern European country than he is about the American economy.

The majority of the protesters that were present during President Bush's visit are anti-war protesters, who believe that the war in Iraq was wrong. As the war against Iraq was initiated under President Bush's orders, then they feel that he is responsible.The recent disgraces committed by American troops (in the prisons of Iraq) have not helped to soften the view of many, many Irish people that the war is wrong.

Referring to your earlier post Ogami, to refer to legitimate protestors who have a RIGHT to make their view known as "human debris" is completely offensive and I'm frankly disgusted with you. Ireland is still a country where free speech is allowed. These people were entitled to their view, however you might oppose that.

Is George Bush a war criminal. I don't know, but I don't believe so. However was the war right...no.

Hail All
Aurelius
"If I had all the answers, I'd run for God"
Cpl. Max Klinger, M*A*S*H



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Bush, GOP, Reagan, Politics-American

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users