Political Opinions

Devil5052 wrote:Look.....I am not a conspiracy buff

You could have fooled me.

vote Ron paul

No, not a conspircy buff, Just a die hard Democrat.

Bk[/quote]

I am a Democrat & proud to say so after the mess these pseudo Republicans have created in the last seven years. ( I don't think any real Republican would want to claim that the Bush/Cheney admin. represents real Republican values)

Everything will be rosy as soon as Hillary is elected, we can all breathe a collective sigh of relief as our entire way of life goes down the toilet.

I'm a Republican and I do not agree with everything Bush/Chaney have done. But I also do not think that electing a Democrat just because someone doesn't like the current administration is the solution to all the problems. You say they are not real Republicans, if real Republicans ran for the office and represented what you believe in would you vote for them?
Can you define a real Republican please?

First of all, everyone at the time including the saintly Bill Clinton thought Iraq had WMDs. Clinton gave a speach shortly before leaving office that Iraq and their WMDs were the biggest threat facing us. So that wasn't just George and Dick.
Interesting news this week about Iraqs WMDs. The FBI agent who was given the task of debriefing Saddam Hussein gave an interview on 60 minutes. Saddam did not believe that the US was really going to invade, right up until almost the moment we invaded. He did however think that Iran was going to invade and the hole WMD threat was a bluff to keep Iran from invading. Obviously it backfired. He did of course previoulsy actually have WMDs and used them on the Kurds. He had plans to reconstitute his WMD program. He was a bad dude and his sons were much worse. His one son was a rapist and sadist. He had people fed into a tree chipper feet first, alive.

Wood'nCoal wrote:Everything will be rosy as soon as Hillary is elected, we can all breathe a collective sigh of relief as our entire way of life goes down the toilet.

!cid_001e01c83119$a8977220$2e01a8c0@LENOVO89DBA9D2.jpg

I'm a Republican and I do not agree with everything Bush/Chaney have done. But I also do not think that electing a Democrat just because someone doesn't like the current administration is the solution to all the problems. You say they are not real Republicans, if real Republicans ran for the office and represented what you believe in would you vote for them?
Can you define a real Republican please?

I am registered as a Democrat (so I can vote in the Dem primary this tuesday) & yes, I have voted for Republicans in the past...... Last time was for Bill Weld for Mass Governor.In reality I am realy independant & vote for the candidate, not his party.If you must put a tag on things. I am conservative in alot of things (believe in small HONEST government, right to bear arms to defend my family & basicaly just for the government to leave me alone & let me live a decent, honarable life without infringing on my neighbor's rights) On other things I am unashamedely liberal. I feel the government has no business being involved in my wife's womb & no business pushing religeon of any denomination. I do feel however, that the government should get involved when the current breed of "Robber Barrons" violate federal law & collude to restrain competition & fix prices at the pump. (especialy when some of these Robber Barrons have offices in my White House!)I also feel that tax breaks for just the super rich & welfare for giant corporations is just plain immoral.

coalkirk wrote:First of all, everyone at the time including the saintly Bill Clinton thought Iraq had WMDs. Clinton gave a speach shortly before leaving office that Iraq and their WMDs were the biggest threat facing us. So that wasn't just George and Dick.
Interesting news this week about Iraqs WMDs. The FBI agent who was given the task of debriefing Saddam Hussein gave an interview on 60 minutes. Saddam did not believe that the US was really going to invade, right up until almost the moment we invaded. He did however think that Iran was going to invade and the hole WMD threat was a bluff to keep Iran from invading. Obviously it backfired. He did of course previoulsy actually have WMDs and used them on the Kurds. He had plans to reconstitute his WMD program. He was a bad dude and his sons were much worse. His one son was a rapist and sadist. He had people fed into a tree chipper feet first, alive.

I agree with your last few sentances but there are plenty of bad people in the world & since when did it become a Repuiblican ideal for the US to police the world? My belief is that George Bush wanted to get back at Saddam Hussein for alledgedly plotting to kill his daddy. period (in other words...a Bush family problem)

Thanks for your answer. I agree with you on some of those topics.
Link to a chart showing who pays the most in personal income taxes:

http://www.treasury.gov/press/releases/js1287.htm

It's a common misconception that the "rich" get off scott-free and dodge income taxes, while the little guy pays more then his fair share. In reality, the highest income earners pay a much larger share of their income in taxes then the average income earner. I realize that you probably already know this, but many others don't.

Another illustration:

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/menu/t ... guest.html

http://www.savewealth.com/taxes/rates/2 ... ntmarried/

Since no one likes to pay taxes to fund the government, including me, at least we can take some comfort in the fact that the highest paid pay more income tax per dollar earned then the lower wage earners.

Unless, of course, they put their money in one of those...tax shelters that only the rich seem to know about.

So what about the definition of a real Republican??

Wood'nCoal wrote:Thanks for your answer. I agree with you on some of those topics.
Link to a chart showing who pays the most in personal income taxes:

http://www.treasury.gov/press/releases/js1287.htm

It's a common misconception that the "rich" get off scott-free and dodge income taxes, while the little guy pays more then his fair share. In reality, the highest income earners pay a much larger share of their income in taxes then the average income earner. I realize that you probably already know this, but many others don't.

Another illustration:

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/menu/t ... guest.html

http://www.savewealth.com/taxes/rates/2 ... ntmarried/

Since no one likes to pay taxes to fund the government, including me, at least we can take some comfort in the fact that the highest paid pay more income tax per dollar earned then the lower wage earners.

Unless, of course, they put their money in one of those...tax shelters that only the rich seem to know about.

So what about the definition of a real Republican??

You know, it's funny but I believe that most of us on this forum are pretty similar:
We don't like to feel dependant on anyone & are willing to do a little work.
We like to help our neighbors out
We are all basicaly decent people who just want to provide a nice, safe & warm life for our families.

What is the defintition of a Republican?..........That's a very tough question but I think we will all agree that the scum that is in power right now is not that definition! I think the definition evolves over time, & I don't think either partry intends to stand for immorality. They just differ on the means to reach a moral ending.
In my opinion, this administration is made up of "Takers" born into priveldged families that never really had to work, or suffer or take responsibilty for anything in their sheltered lives. They feel they are "better" than the rest of us & therfore are really not even bound by our silly little laws or even or quaint Constitution. They are therefore very dangerous men!
That is not what a Republican is.

Devil5052 wrote:I agree with your last few sentances but there are plenty of bad people in the world & since when did it become a Repuiblican ideal for the US to police the world? My belief is that George Bush wanted to get back at Saddam Hussein for alledgedly plotting to kill his daddy. period

Well here's what I think. After 9/11 our policy changed to one of prememption rather than wait to get hit again. You are up on world events so you know that we were hit many times prior to 9/11 by islamic extremeists (first world trade center, marine barracks in Lebanon, the Cole, our embassies in Africa, etc.) and very little if anything was done about it. I'm not pointing fingers because this went on through both republican and democratic administrations. But after 9/11 we went on offense instead of defense. It should be clear to anyone that can read that these people mean to kill as many of us as they can. Unfortunatley many people have a short memory but make no mistake about it, they are plotting, planning and are coming after us again. It was widely believed by republicans and democrats prior to the Iraq invasion that Iraq had WMDs and would make a deal with terorists to supply them with wmds. We already were in the neighborhood (Afganistan) so Iraq made logistical sense. The miscalculation was that the WMDs were not there. If they had been there, George would have been hailed as a hero but we now know how that turned out. Years ago, there was an effort by mostly democrats to dismantle our intelligence abilities and agencies like the CIA had to start being more politically correct. Particularly when it came to who they could make deals with for information. You don't find out dirt by talking to boy scouts so we were operating half blind in the world. I sure hope that has changed. Anyway, I am rambling so I'll stop now. Wait, one more thing. If I were George at the time and I thought I could eliminate a huge threat to the US, AND kick the ass of someone who had plotted to kill the president of the US (who just happened to be my father) I would take it. And I believe that he would have done the same thing if the US president he plotted to kill was Bill Clinton.

coalkirk wrote:

Devil5052 wrote:I agree with your last few sentances but there are plenty of bad people in the world & since when did it become a Repuiblican ideal for the US to police the world? My belief is that George Bush wanted to get back at Saddam Hussein for alledgedly plotting to kill his daddy. period

Well here's what I think. After 9/11 our policy changed to one of prememption rather than wait to get hit again. You are up on world events so you know that we were hit many times prior to 9/11 by islamic extremeists (first world trade center, marine barracks in Lebanon, the Cole, our embassies in Africa, etc.) and very little if anything was done about it. I'm not pointing fingers because this went on through both republican and democratic administrations. But after 9/11 we went on offense instead of defense. It should be clear to anyone that can read that these people mean to kill as many of us as they can. Unfortunatley many people have a short memory but make no mistake about it, they are plotting, planning and are coming after us again. It was widely believed by republicans and democrats prior to the Iraq invasion that Iraq had WMDs and would make a deal with terorists to supply them with wmds. We already were in the neighborhood (Afganistan) so Iraq made logistical sense. The miscalculation was that the WMDs were not there. If they had been there, George would have been hailed as a hero but we now know how that turned out. Years ago, there was an effort by mostly democrats to dismantle our intelligence abilities and agencies like the CIA had to start being more politically correct. Particularly when it came to who they could make deals with for information. You don't find out dirt by talking to boy scouts so we were operating half blind in the world. I sure hope that has changed. Anyway, I am rambling so I'll stop now. Wait, one more thing. If I were George at the time and I thought I could eliminate a huge threat to the US, AND kick the ass of someone who had plotted to kill the president of the US (who just happened to be my father) I would take it. And I believe that he would have done the same thing if the US president he plotted to kill was Bill Clinton.

My belief is that 9/11 served as a convenient excuse to do what this administration inteneded to do from day one.......Get back at Saddam Hussein. Iraq had no Al Quida there before we invaded....Saddam hated & mistrusted them! All but one of the 9/11 hijackers was Saudi Arabian. Our intelligence was not wrong,.. it was just not what Bush/Cheney wanted to hear & needed to deflect our rightful anger towards Iraq. Our fight was always with Alquida which means we should have stayed focused on Afganistan where are real enemies where. Iraq is merely a Bush family sideshow that is costing us dearly in blood & treasure. I also disagree with the conception that Iraq represented any kind of threat to the U.S., let alone a huge threat.

Devil5052 wrote:I also disagree with the conception that Iraq represented any kind of threat to the U.S., let alone a huge threat.

So you disagree with Bill?

spc wrote:

Devil5052 wrote:I also disagree with the conception that Iraq represented any kind of threat to the U.S., let alone a huge threat.

So you disagree with Bill?

Very good rebuttal!
Let me amend my earlier statement: " I also disagree with the conception that Iraq represented any kind of threat to the U.S.".......
to this:
While I do agree that Iraq, under Saddam Huessein, did represent a threat to his neighbors, his theat to the U.S. was minimal & being quite effectively curtailed by UN sanctions & our enforcement of the no fly zone. ...Any better?
What President Clinton was talking about was working with anti-Sadamists within Iraq, as well as his neighbors to eventualy bring about a change of Iraqi leadership. I think that is a fair summary of Clinton's views & a goal that would have eventualy taken place. Clinton's words did not call for the U.S. to unilaterally invade Iraq & set up a long term U.S. occupation.
Can you honestly say that is what Clinton's words envisioned?

Devil5052 wrote:Can you honestly say that is what Clinton's words envisioned?

Clinton didn't have the, how can I say this, guts to do what President Bush did. Do you honestly think "anti-Sadamists within Iraq" would have brought down Sadam? My friend, you are living a pipe dream if you do & if that was Clinton's vision he is living a cigar dream