what has happened to the voice of the gop?

[jefhatfield]

in the old days, there used to be lively debate between democrats and republicans

gop voices such as kissinger, nixon, and gerald ford made for some compelling arguments on both sides

in comes rush limbaugh fifteen years later with his mix of true issues and his stand up humor...new from the point of a famous college droupout, but not on the mark like the old guard educated republicans

then, according to george magazine, limbaugh loses half of his market overnight to a talk show sensation far to the right of him...a newcomer who is radio's top voice...dr. laura

where rush limbaugh had a live and let live attitude towards other lifestyles but didn't believe in preferential treament for those other lifestyles, dr laura seemed to be bent on making america in the image of her

dr laura's ultra conservative followers are more like a cult hanging on her every word as if she was the messiah...even though she got her start sleeping with the married man who got her into radio...and with tons of pictures splattered over the internet to prove it

somehow, she is quick to judge and no on calls her on any contradictions she may have

i believe her extremism truly helped the democrats win in '92 and '96 pushing moderate republicans to the democrat's side

she also led the way to the moderate, middle of the road reform party which capitalized on the great vacuum the gop left in the middle for reformers and blue dog conservative democrats

[sturm375]

I don't see anyone on either side really makeing for some good debates on real issues. I would love to vote for more Libertarians(sp?) in my neck of the woods (even less government than Republicans). Truth be told, I think Jessie Ventura(sp?) had some of the best arguments/debates. Also some very unique ideas for fixing what the Dems & Reps have broken.

Seeing as I was still pretty young (not even eligable to vote yet) in '92 I don't have the clearist picture of what happened. I can tell you what influenced me. Two major events:

1) GOP Nat. Convention. Pat Buchanen(sp?)'s speech sounded very much like that of Hitler. I don't remember much, but I do remember stuff like closing the boarders to imagrants, deporting all "non-americans", and other things. After that speech, it took me a long time before I would even consider voting for a Republican.

2) I know this is going to sound silly, but Clinton's "town hall" discussion on MTV. The GOP completely ignored the younger voters, and were strickly interested in the "influencial" people. This was my perception, maybe incorrect, but that was the way I saw it.

By the time '96 came along, I still hadn't gotten the stinch of Pat Buchanon out of the air, so there was no I was considering a Republican yet.

As for who I listen to today, well in ain't the talking heads on tv, nor is it Rush, Dr Laura, Howard Stern, etc. I take in what the press sends out, then research stuff important to me on the internet. I also read, and re-read the Constitution & Declearation if Independence, to figure out what our founding fathers might think.

[jefhatfield]

the constitution tried to get us out of the hold of the english church, among others, and the writers would roll over in their grave if they knew protestant america was trying to pull over a "vatican" like hold on politics with the christian right

separation of church and state folks

if a christian wants to let the world know of jesus the messiah, it is best done from the pulpit, door to door, and on the street, not with billionaire yacht club, wallstreeters professing christianity to get votes for the gop

wasn't there something in the bible about a camel passing thru the eye of a needle being more possible than a rich man going to heaven?

the gop needs to work on their main message....small government

and let the religious entities of america worry about the spiritual side of things

like colin powell said in his book, god gave us a set of rules to live by, not a legislative agenda...amen to that

let politics be politics and let religion be religion...my fear is of the former polluting the latter

[sturm375]

Amen to that brother Jefhatfield:)

[mcrain]

Originally posted by jefhatfield
the constitution tried to get us out of the hold of the english church, among others, and the writers would roll over in their grave if they knew protestant america was trying to pull over a "vatican" like hold on politics with the christian right

separation of church and state folks

if a christian wants to let the world know of jesus the messiah, it is best done from the pulpit, door to door, and on the street, not with billionaire yacht club, wallstreeters professing christianity to get votes for the gop

wasn't there something in the bible about a camel passing thru the eye of a needle being more possible than a rich man going to heaven?

the gop needs to work on their main message....small government

and let the religious entities of america worry about the spiritual side of things

like colin powell said in his book, god gave us a set of rules to live by, not a legislative agenda...amen to that

let politics be politics and let religion be religion...my fear is of the former polluting the latter

First, the bible is fiction. It was written by a group of men in an attempt to describe their feeling that there was a supreme being or god. Every civilization has had that same feeling, every civilization has attempted to describe that feeling, and due to regional, language and other differences, the descriptions are all different subtly, but for the most part the same.

So, any argument based on the bible is fundamentally flawed.

(note: I'm a Christian)

GOP's message isn't small goverment Mr. Jefhatfield, the GOP's message is small taxes (on the rich especially) and small goverment regulation of business (i.e. Enron, Worldcom, ImClone, etc.).

Colin Powell, talk about an underused, yet overrated talent. He's the only conservative I fear politically (what I mean is that I'd consider voting for him). But, he's wrong. God didn't "give" us a set of rules (assuming he's referring to rules set forth in the ten commandments [or any other religion for that matter])

(Note: I'm Christian, but also Hindu).

Oh, from the other thread: Oriental describes inanimate objects such as rugs. When used to describe a person, it is derogatory because it connotates that the person is chattle (personal property). You know, like a slave.

Asian: We are the majority, get used to it.

Asian: The only group in the good 'ol U.S. of A. still actively discriminated against. (They analyzed getting rid of that statute in California [prop 278 or whatever] and they found that if they did, enrollment of black and hispanic students would drop, caucasion would stay about the same, and asian student rates would increase. That shows that asians are being held out of academic spots so that they can be given to black and hispanic students) Yep, whitey holding down the asians in an attempt to make up for past discrimination to the blacks and hispanics. That's real fair. Why on earth hasn't anyone suggested that they allocate spots to students based on qualifcations, and then cut white (honkey? -- I'm being anti-PC ;) ) students in favor of black and hispanic. Why, because that would ruin white people's track record of scr*wing other races in their own favor.

Asian: Russians (a huge country), India (about a billion), China (over a billion), Japan (nearing 300 Million), Korea, Thailand, Indonesia, Taiwan (PRC), all of the Middle East (Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Isreal), many of the 'stans (east of the Urals).

Asians: We are well, well over half the world's population, yet we are one f***ing bubble on the form that asks what race you are. What a f***ing joke.

Me: I'm Asian. But, I'm not Chinese. I'm not Japanese. I'm not Korean. I'm not Thai. I'm not Russian. I'm not Jewish. I'm not Arabic. I'm not from one of the 'stans. I'm certainly not "oriental." I bet there are a bunch of people scratching their heads, thinking, but then you're not Asian. Silly people.

(Sorry for the rant)

[Taft]

Ann Coulter happenned.

I agree that both sides lack real political discourse. They present ideas, but politicians conviction on those ideas is measured by public opinion and their ability to blame the other side.

And that is the heart of the problem. The finger pointing. The right says, "Its all the lefts fault." The left says, "Its the rights fault." Nothing gets done. No ideas are out there being debated, just finger pointing.

And now, God help us, we have conservative pundits like Ann Coulter on the scene. Her current "platform" is accusing the left of killing political discourse and of resorting to namecalling, labling and fingerpointing. And she has a point. The problem is she fails to recognize that she is doing the exact same thing, just as most conservatives do. On top of this, the facts that she credits (and footnotes) in her book are at best, very dubious in their veracity and at worst outright lies.

And so Coulter becomes what she purports to expose on the left: a fingerpointing, venom-spewing pundit.

I think this is characteristic of extremists and party loyalists on both sides. And it is unfortunately becoming more and more true for most of the "middle ground" liberals and conservatives. And as it happens, as public opinion rules political action and beliefs, as winning elections becomes a game of smearing and branding your opponents, as both sides become more similar yet more visciously divided, real political debate and real change to the benifit of society ceases.

Its sad really.

Taft

[Taft]

A coworker of mine is a selfproclaimed Libertarian leaning HEAVILY to the right. But he is a very reasonable and rational person, for whom I have a lot of respect.

We have debates about twice a week. The debates are spurred by whats in the headlines or things that come up in the office, but the end up with some heavy political debate. Both myself and my coworker come away from these debates enlightened and feeling good, even though we didn't change each others minds necessarily. We saw each others viewpoints, we batted them around in our heads and we talked about them. Its a very fullfilling experience.

Another coworker also leans heavily to the right. But he, in contrast, is the kind of person stopping debate in this country. He is out to win the debate. He doesn't want to really hear my arguments, he only wants to convince me of his. Our conversations only serve to frustrate and anger me.

And I think this highlights one of the main problems with politics in general. What matters most is not the welfare of our society and nation. What matters most is which side wins. The left and the right are battling for supremicy and to win, they must control the minds and hearts of the public.

We need to shift the focus of politics away from winning and towards debating and implementing ideas to futher our society and let it prosper.

Taft

[zarathustra]

My belief is that the media has WAY too much influence on younger adults and the not-yet-voters. The issues become very superficial and watered down, and they will refuse any republican thoughts, ideas just based on the fact that they are republican.

MTV and the like painted the republicans to be semi-fascist, capitalist opressors that wants the young to get to work (God forbid). It is hard to have a discussion with younger people because they have already made up their minds that anything republican is bad.

On the other hand, isn't there a saying:

"When you are young and not a liberal, you don't have a heart, and when you are not a conservative when you are old, you don't have a brain."

[sturm375]

I believe that the biggest thing destroying our politics is money. Not just any money but Corporate money. Here is what I think should happen in our country:

1) Get rid of all corporate income tax. At the moment it only makes up 10% of the federal government's tax income anyway.

2) Remove all corporate monies, in any form, from politics. (no taxisation without representation see above "1"). This means both direct political contributions, as well as paying for plane trips, meals, cars, schools, fund raiser/rally locations...etc.

3) Remove the cap on personal donations to political parties.

All of these things need to happen in short order. These will never happen because our representitives in D.C. are enjoying the fortunes being thrown their ways by large companies.

Also I am specifically leaving out the "special intrests" lobbiests. I believe they are different than corporate lobbiests.

Special Interest Lobbiest: Represents a bunch of like minded people who agree on at least one thing, the special intrest of that group: NRA, ACLU, just to name a couple.

Corporate Lobbiest: Represenst the 20 or so Chief xxxxx Officers/Board of directors in corporations. Does not represent the 20,000 people working at these companies.

If these things can be done, we might have a chance at actually being represented by our elected officials.:rolleyes:

[iH8Quark]

The problem with government now is the Bush administration. They're pushing they're conservative agenda on everyone by piggybacking every issue onto "terrorism" and "patriotism"....more like "jingoism".

Suddenly it's "unpatriotic" to criticize your government. This is evident by the fact that The White House publicly scolded outspoken critics after 9/11, and has continued to do so. (e.g. Bill Maher).

And you're "unAmerican" if you're not staunchly Christian. Like you're somehow not part of the club (e.g. Pledge debate, recent AIDS conference in which organizations, AND CONGRESS complained about the lack or "religious themes").

The sign over the door says "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me. I lift my lamp beside the golden door".

It does NOT say "send anyone you like as long as their Christian, and they don't criticize what we're doing here".

We are being hoodwinked. We're being controlled like cattle. But we are living in a society (much like Romans, before the fall of _their_ empire), in which we are placated into pacifism. Placated by mindless, right-wing television and Radio (see that idiot Bill O'Reiley). But we are losing freedoms and rights in large portions.

Now your government can imprison you for an indefinite period of time, with no charges being filed against you, with no access to an attourney, because they consider you a "threat". And if you're lucky enough to get an attourney, they can record your conversations with him. You're basically screwed. Don't think this only applies to "Terrorists" (whoever, and whatever they are). Read the law. It specifically states that people deemed "dangerous to the continuity of established government" can be imprisoned.

There's no good debates any more because the PARTIES CONTROL THE DEBATES! In the "town hall" debates, for example, the parties have complete control over:

a) who asks the questions
b) to whom they're asked first
c) what the questions are

All in advance! The days of true debate, and sorting out true wit are gone. Any party outside the recognized two parties can be excluded from the debates, and can only participate if invited. No real man, or true patriot can realistically run for president any more. And that is truly, truly sad.

What we need in this country is a good old fashioned revolution. A peoples revolt. We need to show that we're tired of living out a corporate agenda. That we're not a bunch of special interest groups. That we all deserve health care, and the right to be heard, run for office, and question publicly the actions of our government. George Bush and his administration are a disaster, and a human rights crisis of epic proportions is in the making.

This is no longer the America of Freedom This is the America of Lobyists, the burgeoise, and a socially elite judicial branch.

I say, "I blow my nose to you" to the FBI, who I know will eventually examine this. :p :mad:

And yes, I am a patriot, because I know that true patriots question the actions of their government.

Soory, but I truly despise what's happening with our governemnt, and it makes me sick.

...whew...I feel better. :D

[iH8Quark]

Oh yeah, and before he screwed up,

JAMES TRAFFICANT WAS A GOD!

[zarathustra]

Originally posted by iH8Quark
The problem with government now is the Bush administration. The office of the president and the government are NOT synonimous. People make the mistake to equate these two. The house and the senate are the legislative powers that pass bills to be signed by the president. They're pushing they're *you mean thier* conservative agenda on everyone by piggybacking every issue onto "terrorism" and "patriotism"....more like "jingoism". The democratic president will push his agenda, and patriotism is used by both extremes.

Suddenly it's "unpatriotic" to criticize your government. This is evident by the fact that The White House publicly scolded outspoken critics after 9/11, and has continued to do so. (e.g. Bill Maher). Bill Maher in my oppinion is a babbling idiot that pretends to be inpartial, but in the end leads the conservation into mudslinging with his liberal views. Just like I don't like Rush Limbaugh, or Bill O'Reily.

And you're "unAmerican" if you're not staunchly Christian. Like you're somehow not part of the club (e.g. Pledge debate, recent AIDS conference in which organizations, AND CONGRESS complained about the lack or "religious themes"). I wouldn't compare the pledge to an AIDS conference. While I agree with you on the overly religious overtones to everything, the pledge simply states your devotion to the US. When they say in GOD we trust, just think of your particular GOD, or lack thereof.

The sign over the door says "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me. I lift my lamp beside the golden door".

It does NOT say "send anyone you like as long as their Christian, and they don't criticize what we're doing here". I dont know how you went from the pledge to immigration, but you just don't make much sense here. There is NO questions regarding someone's religious preference on immigration documents.

We are being hoodwinked. We're being controlled like cattle. But we are living in a society (much like Romans, before the fall of _their_ empire), in which we are placated into pacifism. Placated by mindless, right-wing television and Radio (see that idiot Bill O'Reiley). But we are losing freedoms and rights in large portions.

Now your government can imprison you for an indefinite period of time, with no charges being filed against you, with no access to an attourney, because they consider you a "threat". And if you're lucky enough to get an attourney, they can record your conversations with him. You're basically screwed. Don't think this only applies to "Terrorists" (whoever, and whatever they are). Read the law. It specifically states that people deemed "dangerous to the continuity of established government" can be imprisoned.

There's no good debates any more because the PARTIES CONTROL THE DEBATES! In the "town hall" debates, for example, the parties have complete control over:

a) who asks the questions
b) to whom they're asked first
c) what the questions are

All in advance! The days of true debate, and sorting out true wit are gone. Any party outside the recognized two parties can be excluded from the debates, and can only participate if invited. No real man, or true patriot can realistically run for president any more. And that is truly, truly sad.

What we need in this country is a good old fashioned revolution. A peoples revolt. We need to show that we're tired of living out a corporate agenda. That we're not a bunch of special interest groups. That we all deserve health care, and the right to be heard, run for office, and question publicly the actions of our government.

George Bush and his administration are a disaster, and a human rights crisis of epic proportions is in the making. Hmm, that was a long rant. I would love for you to specify how the Bush administration is a disaster. It seems that you just hate Bush, and will not look at the fact that Clinton was a disaster as well. If you will look back in ten years, only his scandals will be remembered. The economic "bliss" was a legacy of Reagan and Bush Sr. The economy took a downturn well before Bush Jr. was elected. And all the "sleaze" that caused companies to collapse happened during Clinton but were revealed under Bush.

This is no longer the America of Freedom This is the America of Lobyists, the burgeoise, and a socially elite judicial branch. True.

I say, "I blow my nose to you" to the FBI, who I know will eventually examine this. :p :mad:

And yes, I am a patriot, because I know that true patriots question the actions of their government.

Soory, but I truly despise what's happening with our governemnt, and it makes me sick.

...whew...I feel better. :D

[iH8Quark]

The pledge to immigration. That debate has been had, but to rehash, the basic voice of the Conservative GOP was "If you don't like the fact that we believe in God, you shouldn't be here".

And I personally don't care if Bill Clinton got is rocks off in the oval office. If I were the most powerful man in the world, I would to. At least under Clinton we couldn't be subjected to random and seemingly unjustified search and siezure, indefinite imprisonment without legal representation, seen the elimination of attourney-client privalege, and allowed to be wire-tapped for no reason whatsoever.

And how is the Bush administration a disaster? Are you for real? His environmental policy is an atrocity, alone. Our "foreign policy" is a disgrace. We walked away from a middle-east peace deal it took us 8 years to build, and now we're back to square one. Yes, let's elect Harvey Pitt chairman of the SEC when he used to be a PERSONAL TAX ATTOURNEY to a number of the CEO's and CFO's who are now under investigation for fraud. I could go on, and on.

[iH8Quark]

The economy took a downturn well before Bush Jr. was elected. And all the "sleaze" that caused companies to collapse happened during Clinton but were revealed under Bush.

yes, i agree with you. i in no way implied he was to blame for the economy. that wasn't even part of my rant.

[iH8Quark]

Bill Maher in my oppinion is a babbling idiot that pretends to be inpartial, but in the end leads the conservation into mudslinging with his liberal views. Just like I don't like Rush Limbaugh, or Bill O'Reily.

I believe you mean conversation

Yes, Bill Maher is in fact, a biased host. I would agree with you. but my point is, you don't see the white house scolding bill o'reiley when makes Hitler-esque comments like calling all muslums "the enemy". but you do see them scolding bill maher when he's outspoken about his contempt for the bush administration's piggyback politics, and using Sept. 11th as a political tool.

[BongHits]

ill make it easy for all of you...religion is a means of opressing the poor...all it is issaying SURE YOUR LIFES ****TY NOW BUT IF YOUR GOOD ENOUGH YOU'LL LIVE IN ETERNAL HAPPINESS IN HEAVEN **** that ****, when you die your body decomposes and becomes part of the surroundings. I don't need a freaking child molester to tell me how to live a holy and pure life. Religion is an instrument of the rich, ever notice how modest and humble the popes gold embroidered cloth is? Give me a break. Btw my dad's father was hardcore roman catholic and my mom's side of the family is jewish so don't tell me i have no idea about religion.

[iH8Quark]

Here's my point. There's a lot of youngsters on these polls who don't vote. Maybe they're not old enough, but whatever. they probably don't take much notice of what's going on in the government, or who's taking away their rights. But these kids are the future of this country, and the sooner they realize what's really going on here, they can act to force change.

The smallest percentage of voters are people under 35. That's truly sad. These issues need to be discussed with young people, and brought to their attention, so that than can take steps to make changes before it's too late. Before these constitutional violations are too engrained in our society.

[BongHits]

Originally posted by iH8Quark
The pledge to immigration. That debate has been had, but to rehash, the basic voice of the Conservative GOP was "If you don't like the fact that we believe in God, you shouldn't be here".

And I personally don't care if Bill Clinton got is rocks off in the oval office. If I were the most powerful man in the world, I would to. At least under Clinton we couldn't be subjected to random and seemingly unjustified search and siezure, indefinite imprisonment without legal representation, seen the elimination of attourney-client privalege, and allowed to be wire-tapped for no reason whatsoever.

And how is the Bush administration a disaster? Are you for real? His environmental policy is an atrocity, alone. Our "foreign policy" is a disgrace. We walked away from a middle-east peace deal it took us 8 years to build, and now we're back to square one. Yes, let's elect Harvey Pitt chairman of the SEC when he used to be a PERSONAL TAX ATTOURNEY to a number of the CEO's and CFO's who are now under investigation for fraud. I could go on, and on.

preach on brother...now if only half the popular vote were more like you...o wait, it was. the bush family is a joke, anyone who doesn't understand the fact that every time a bush is elected we WILL go to war to expand big oil companies is a f*ckin moron. I think it's very convenient that Bush let the afghans and bin laden attack (with or w/o prior knowledge u can decide) the united states after they refused an agreement to build an oil pipe line directly through Taliban territory that would give them nothing. It would have cost billions to go around them, so instead we went straight through and gave them ZERO of the profit from THEIR oil, and when they said no, we started world war 3.

[BongHits]

to zarathustra: its amazing how the only supporter of Bush is actually from Dallas. Unfortunately your secession from the united states was a failure. Give it another try

[BongHits]

ill make it easy for all of you...religion is a means of opressing the poor...all it is issaying SURE YOUR LIFES ****TY NOW BUT IF YOUR GOOD ENOUGH YOU'LL LIVE IN ETERNAL HAPPINESS IN HEAVEN **** that ****, when you die your body decomposes and becomes part of the surroundings. I don't need a freaking child molester to tell me how to live a holy and pure life. Religion is an instrument of the rich, ever notice how modest and humble the popes gold embroidered cloth is? Give me a break. Btw my dad's father was hardcore roman catholic and my mom's side of the family is jewish so don't tell me i have no idea about religion.

[iH8Quark]

Originally posted by BongHits
preach on brother...now if only half the popular vote were more like you...o wait, it was. the bush family is a joke, anyone who doesn't understand the fact that every time a bush is elected we WILL go to war to expand big oil companies

you are absolutely positively spot on. well, maybe not the WWIII part...

but you are correct, i believe. (although i would like to think you wrong about the letting them attack us thing) :(

[Judo]

I don't know how many times I've posted this now, but this site is the BEST news site I've seen. It always has articles on what the American gouvernment is up to and gives a different spin from the absolute cr@p you get from other media. www.alternet.org

I don't live in America (from New Zealand) and from an outsiders point of view I'm not at all impressed with George Bush, but I'm not sure Bill Clinton was any better. Has anyone seen The Clinton Chronicles?? Don't know if I believe it all but it is interesting and a little funny cause it's just so over the top. not something I would put past an American President though.


Shot Bonghits:p I can't stand religion, It's stifled human freedoms, curiosity and society so much in the past I just don't understand why people still dedicate their lives to it.

[Taft]

Originally posted by BongHits
ill make it easy for all of you...religion is a means of opressing the poor...all it is issaying SURE YOUR LIFES ****TY NOW BUT IF YOUR GOOD ENOUGH YOU'LL LIVE IN ETERNAL HAPPINESS IN HEAVEN **** that ****, when you die your body decomposes and becomes part of the surroundings. I don't need a freaking child molester to tell me how to live a holy and pure life. Religion is an instrument of the rich, ever notice how modest and humble the popes gold embroidered cloth is? Give me a break. Btw my dad's father was hardcore roman catholic and my mom's side of the family is jewish so don't tell me i have no idea about religion.

Holy extremist opinions Batman.

I lean liberal, I dislike Bush and his administration's policies as much as anyone, and I believe that religion through the ages has been as self-serving and manipulative as any monarch or government. But this and your rant on Bush rigging WWIII are total s**t.

If you read the original post on this thread, you'll see that the question posed is, "Why doesn't the GOP have a voice? Why isn't there real political discussion?" YOU are the answer to this question. By uncompromisingly pushing your lies and extreme views on people, you completely block real political discussion.

Let some opposing opinions in your head. Throw them around a little. Find the good in them and the bad. Offer REAL solutions to REAL problems. Send your message rationally and without the hype.

THAT is how we get back to real political discussion in this country.

Taft

[jelloshotsrule]

reason is simple... republicans and dems are the same. nothing to debate...

[zarathustra]

Originally posted by BongHits


preach on brother...now if only half the popular vote were more like you...o wait, it was. the bush family is a joke, anyone who doesn't understand the fact that every time a bush is elected we WILL go to war to expand big oil companies is a f*ckin moron. I think it's very convenient that Bush let the afghans and bin laden attack (with or w/o prior knowledge u can decide) the united states after they refused an agreement to build an oil pipe line directly through Taliban territory that would give them nothing. It would have cost billions to go around them, so instead we went straight through and gave them ZERO of the profit from THEIR oil, and when they said no, we started world war 3.

I was going to think you were a reasonable, intelligent person until I read your "f*ckin moron" comment. Anyone can believe in whatever they want, and it's no reason to call them explicit names. You absolutely discredited yourself by using such language. It is very easy to spew expletives.

BTW, To claim that Bush "let" the terrorists attack, is just plain wrong. It is a revelation for me that the US was building oil pipes through Afghanistan. If this is the case, I still don't understand your comments.

It is confusing that "they refused an agreement to build an oil pipe line directly through Taliban territory that would give them nothing"; "It would have cost billions to go around them, so instead we went straight through and gave them ZERO of the profit from THEIR oil, and when they said no, we started world war 3".

If they are piping through Afghanistan, they are not drilling there; if they are not drilling there, it's not their oil. If they did pipe through Taliban territory, there would have been plenty of opportunity to disrupt the oil flow. And I don't remember the Al-Qaeda ever requesting the payment for oil or removal of oil lines from Afghanistan. I would love to see where you pulled these wonderful gems of information from.

[zarathustra]

Originally posted by jelloshotsrule
reason is simple... republicans and dems are the same. nothing to debate...

Lewis Black, the comedian once said about this:

"The republicans and the democrats are the same crock of sh*t, they just smell different."

I agree with an addition, "extreme republicans and the extreme democrats".

[zarathustra]

Originally posted by BongHits
to zarathustra: its amazing how the only supporter of Bush is actually from Dallas. Unfortunately your secession from the united states was a failure. Give it another try

I don't consider myself a supporter, rather a "defender of the underrepresented". How would any of us act in his place?

[BongHits]

all info comes from my college professors....so i guess it's as accurate as anything that bill maher claims...from my understanding of what they've told me their was a huge oil deposit in afghan territory and obviously Mr. Bush wanted it all to himself. He tried to (not personally but you know...) cut a deal with the Taliban that gave them something like 1/10 of the oil profits. The Afghans basically gave him the finger, and now we have a very strong military presence in the area (protecting the rights of free people...and the pipe line). I'm sorry for the F Moron comment, I get really worked up when I talk about our government. I'm basically a 19 year old who is so disappointed in our government that I'm looking to move to Asia (China or Thailand) or even Australia to escape what I think is going to be the worst politcal blunder in history. I have absolutely ZERO facts about how Bush made his way into office, anything I say is really just opinion. In class today we were talking about how nobody really won, it was just awarded by the supreme court (i thought it was the electoral college, shows you how much I know:eek: ). I have seen on CNN that we do have oil pipelines in Afghanistan, they just never go into detail about it. Anybody out there who can back me up? IMO Bush is possibly the stupidest man to make president and when you watch him talk, it's blatantly obvious a screw is loose. Just the other day I saw him on the news talking about the baseball strike, and that's the angriest I've ever seen him. Bush is a big business man, and big business men aren't looking out for the well being of their country, but for no. 1. So sorry for getting angry and the secession comment, its all love.

Brian

p.s. even 19 year olds can be very immature (more so than 16yo IMO)

[BongHits]

Originally posted by Taft


Holy extremist opinions Batman.

I lean liberal, I dislike Bush and his administration's policies as much as anyone, and I believe that religion through the ages has been as self-serving and manipulative as any monarch or government. But this and your rant on Bush rigging WWIII are total s**t.

If you read the original post on this thread, you'll see that the question posed is, "Why doesn't the GOP have a voice? Why isn't there real political discussion?" YOU are the answer to this question. By uncompromisingly pushing your lies and extreme views on people, you completely block real political discussion.

Let some opposing opinions in your head. Throw them around a little. Find the good in them and the bad. Offer REAL solutions to REAL problems. Send your message rationally and without the hype.

THAT is how we get back to real political discussion in this country.

Taft
to everyone who has commented on me saying Bush set up WW3 and let the taliban attack us, I obviously misworded what I said...IMO Bush did know that the Taliban were looking to attack us (although I doubt he knew were). It's debatable whether or not a warning would have done any good (other than cause mass panic) but I do think there is alot that could have been done to deter the situation. For instance....LOCKING the pilots door onboard an airplane and making it thicker than cardboard could have done alot considering they were armed with (plastic??) knives. An officer onboard planes with a nice pistol also would go a long way, bt these are all hindsights. To Taft, I really do believe that religion is BS and there are alot of people who think im crazy because of it, to each their own.

To zarathrusa: rather a "defender of the underrepresented". ummm....who does Bush defend that is underrepresented? The spanish population??I'm sure he's doing that out of the good will of his heart. Consider for amoment, that the spanish population in this country is rapidly increasing. In close to a decade people of latin-ethnicity will make up close to HALF our countries population. When it comes time to vote Bush knows the majority of people on his side are the upper class (1% of pop.) so he is trying to gain their support. You can say what you want about Bush already having the popular vote...but I honestly believe he won the election thanks to his brother and would have lost badly had their been a true recount (or re-vote). All in all it's really up to the individual to make their decision on who's the right man for the job and what's really going on in the government (read foreign newspapers to get an idea of what they think about us...it's sad really). Until I graduate college, my sister can only tell me how nice it is to be outside of the United States.

I personally think there is no solution except for time. Eventually Bush will finish this term and (probably...OH NO!) get a second term...Then it will take about a decade or so for everyone after him to repair the damage that he's done. I personally think everyone who feels that the economy went sour durin Clinton and it just magically came to the forefront during Bush's era aren't really watching what's going on. They think to themselves Clinton's the worst president ever HE GOT A BLOWJOB!! i still cant believe what a snafu this became...Has anybody NOT gotten a blowjob? Dude I bet Kennedy was pimping in the white house and he was (arguably) one of our best presidents. I also like the fact that Bush tricked everyone into thinking he was giving them $500 (Bush's effort to boost our economy which everyone just put in the bank) when it was really just a loan you had to pay back next tax season now if that isn't a clear example of Bush misrepresenting what he's really doing i don't know what is....Here's an idea...if you want to boost our economy SCRAP your 50 billion dollar missile defense program (which is garbage anyway) and put that money into impoverished areas and schools that dont even have ONE computer! My apartment has a better computer lab than half the schools on the south side...

[vniow]

Hey BongHits, I'd like to hear more on why you think religion is bullmilk, it sounds interesting. :)

[BongHits]

Originally posted by edvniow
Hey BongHits, I'd like to hear more on why you think religion is bullmilk, it sounds interesting. :)
when I was a child I grew up in a very unique circumstance. There were two religions practiced in my household, and I was allowed the freedom to choose (OMG GASP! THE HORROR!) my own religion. I have never officially chose one, only studied a few. I think the religions that have the real life value are in the Buddhist and Tao regions, where it's not really praying to a god, but more of a way of life. I think that's amazing. IMO I have seen nothing good come from religion except people oppressing other people. The most current and notorious example would be the Palestinians and Israeli's. This is a conflict that has been going on for centuries all (from what I understand) because a man favored one son (the one who was israeli) over the other (the palestinian). Regardless of how it came to be....these people are fighting over religion. Its not over their borders, (actually it kind of is but thats a completely different forum) the borders were set by Britain back around 1880 (?). I feel that religion was a development of the rich, to keep them in power. Basically you have a few people who have everything (our 1% has more power than the rest of the country for example) and they know that at any time it could easily be taken from them by a few hundred oppressed people marching in and simply killing them. So they had to have a way of controlling them and keeping them from rising up against them. In comes the ten commandments (thou shall not steal, thou shall not kill, thou shall not covet thy neighbors belongings, etc.) this list of rules, basically said if you tried to better your position in life by killing those who oppressed you, or put some clothes on your children's back and feed them by stealing, you were going to spend an eternity in hell, and it certainly wasnt worth that. So instead you had to bow to the whim of the upper class and work your ass off to provide for your family, and the rich would be happy because your now working for them making them money, and they're still in their position of power. I mean what religion goes about saying Thou Shalt Not Kill and then slaughter millions of innocent people ( the crusades) because they refuse to believe in what you do?? Look at our Native American population. They took us in, taught us to survive the harsh winters, and we turned around and stabbed them in the back with our "Manifest Destiny" and we STILL have not paid them their rightful retribution (the average indian earns approx. 1/10 of the official poverty line...meaning they can't afford to improve their surroundings) I could go on forever, but lets just say I'm afraid of Christians....come on do you really think the world was built in seven days??? Did people just magically appear out of nowhere? Does evolution really not exist, it just kind of happened that way (god's influence)? However I do respect your right to freedom of religion and as such should probably stop before the Harri-Krishnah's (spelling???) are at my door trying to convert me.


I have never read the bible...but my teacher has told me that it condones both slavery and adultery. One of the main people (Solomon or Abraham???) had slaves, and one of them also had children by two different women...Any religion that's ok with slavery is positively insane...Has anyone else been to the Bible Belt (NC, SC area)? All I can say is OMG it was my first glimpse of hell on earth

[BongHits]

Originally posted by edvniow
Hey BongHits, I'd like to hear more on why you think religion is bullmilk, it sounds interesting. :)
when I was a child I grew up in a very unique circumstance. There were two religions practiced in my household, and I was allowed the freedome to choose (OMG GASP! THE HORROR!) my own religion. I have never officially chose one, only studied a few. I think the religions that have the real life value are in the Buddhist and Tao regions, where it's not really praying to a god, but more of a way of life. I think that's amazing. IMO I have seen nothing good come from religion except people oppressing other people. The most current and notorious example would be the Palestinians and Israeli's. This is a conflict that has been going on for centuries all (from what I understand) because a man favored one son (the one who was israeli) over the other (the palestinian). Regardless of how it came to be....these people are fighting over religion. Its not over their borders, the borders were set by Britain back around 1880 (?). I feel that religion was a development of the rich, to keep them in power. Basically you have a few people who have everything (our 1% has more power than the rest of the country for example) and they know that at any time it could easily be taken from them by a few hundred oppressed people marching in and simply killing them. So they had to have a way of controlling them and keeping them from rising up against them. In comes the ten commandments (thou shall not steal, thou shall not kill, thou shall not covet thy neighbors belongings, etc.) this list of rules, basically said if you tried to better your position in life by killing those who oppressed you, or put some clothes on your children's back and feed them by stealing, you were going to spend an eternity in hell, and it certainly wasnt worth that. So instead you had to bow to the whim of the upper class and work your ass off to provide for your family, and the rich would be happy because your now working for them making them money, and they're still in their position of power. I mean what religion goes about saying Thou Shalt Not Kill and then slaughter millions of innocent people ( the crusades) because they refuse to believe in what you do?? Look at our Native American population. They took us in, taught us to survive the harsh winters, and we turned around and stabbed them in the back with our "Manifest Destiny" and we STILL have not paid them their rightful retribution (the average indian earns approx. 1/10 of the official poverty line...meaning they can't afford to improve their surroundings) I could go on forever, but lets just say I'm afraid of Christians....come on do you really think the world was built in seven days??? Did people just magically appear out of nowhere? Does evolution really not exist, it just kind of happened that way (god's influence)? However I do respect your right to freedom of religion and as such should probably stop before the Harri-Krishnah's (spelling???) are at my door trying to convert me.

[Taft]

Originally posted by BongHits
...
from my understanding of what they've told me their was a huge oil deposit in afghan territory and obviously Mr. Bush wanted it all to himself. He tried to (not personally but you know...) cut a deal with the Taliban that gave them something like 1/10 of the oil profits.
...
I have absolutely ZERO facts about how Bush made his way into office, anything I say is really just opinion.
...
I have seen on CNN that we do have oil pipelines in Afghanistan, they just never go into detail about it. Anybody out there who can back me up?
...
Bush is a big business man, and big business men aren't looking out for the well being of their country, but for no. 1.
...
Brian


OK, I admit that I agree with many of the things you have said. I believe there is a strong conflict of interests in the Bush administration on a variety of fronts (oil, accounting, etc.). And though I believe in a higher power, I too think that organized religions have huge problems that derive from simple human nature (desire for money, power, sex, etc.).

But to get back to the point of this thread (I'm really trying hard here)...

The things I have a problem with are the factless/baseless accusations you make, the unwavering certainty and the decree-like style of your assertions, and the fact that yourpresent many problems, but no solutions. And as I said before, its this very type of action that squelches debate in this country.

Look at what I quoted. You derive your facts from a single (and from the sounds of it, very liberal) source. You admit that you don't have the facts on a few points. But then you end up saying, "Bush only looks out for #1. He's big business all the way. Conservatives = money grubbing bastards." This is the exact behavior of extreme liberals and conservatives and the same rhetoric that Ann Coulter simultaneously attacks and spews.

My point is that this is the exact kind of rhetoric that gets us no where. It skirts the facts, makes sweeping generalizations and accusations, and ends up labelling and namecalling with no definitive suggestion for a course of action. Its fluff.

How about calling for investigations into who knew what before 9/11? Or looking into Bush's past business ventures/supposed misdeeds? Or calling for an administration-independant task force to investigate accounting practices and intigate real reform? If you suggested these courses of action, many people would back you up (there are many calling for the same or similar solutions). And even if they didn't back you up, it might start the wheels working in their heads. "Maybe looking into it WOULD be a good idea..."

Find out the facts, form your opinion, then lay out your ideas for what needs to change. Then someone will undoubtedly come in and tell you that we disagree. Listen to their opinioins, consider them, then offer counter arguments or agreements.

Am I the only one here who sees this as a major roadblock to debate in our country right now??

Taft

[vniow]

Originally posted by BongHits

I could go on forever, but lets just say I'm afraid of Christians....come on do you really think the world was built in seven days??? Did people just magically appear out of nowhere? Does evolution really not exist, it just kind of happened that way (god's influence)? However I do respect your right to freedom of religion and as such should probably stop before the Harri-Krishnah's (spelling???) are at my door trying to convert me.

Thanx, I'm in agreement with you that organized religion is bullmilk but about those idiot Christians that think the world was formed in 7 days, and Adam was created from sand and Eve was formed from his rib (well not actually a rib, more like his crotch, when the Bible was being translated into the King James version which we all know and love, England was going through a Puritanical period at the time and Eve coming from Adam's genitals didn't go over well for the translators so they replaced it with a rib, the phallic symbolism is obvious) they're missing the point. Anybody who takes the Bible or any other myth literally is really missing the point. I hate it when I tell Christians this and they either stand by their literal beiefs or abandon them completely thinking that "oh it's just a myth, it's not true". The Bible speaks nothing BUT truth and before you flame me, hear me out. It's not literal, so let's clear that out of the way. I can give you a pretty thurough analyzation of the 7 days, but another time perhaps. So if it's not literal, then what is it? It's symbolic. You're not going to find Noah's Ark anywhere, no matter what the Discovery Channel tells you, the Red Sea never parted, Jonah was never swallowed by a whale and so on and so on. The truth the Bible tells is about relationship. Mostly male relationship to be exact. (You just can't talk about Adam and Eve without talking about the obvious bias) relationship between man and woman, relationship between man and nature, relationship betwen man and man and relationship between man and God. Look, I'm not a Bible thumper, nor do I agree with a lot of what the Bible says, I just get a little steamed when people try to take it or any other myth literally. Not directed at you BongHits. :)

[BongHits]

Originally posted by Taft


Holy extremist opinions Batman.

I lean liberal, I dislike Bush and his administration's policies as much as anyone, and I believe that religion through the ages has been as self-serving and manipulative as any monarch or government. But this and your rant on Bush rigging WWIII are total s**t.

If you read the original post on this thread, you'll see that the question posed is, "Why doesn't the GOP have a voice? Why isn't there real political discussion?" YOU are the answer to this question. By uncompromisingly pushing your lies and extreme views on people, you completely block real political discussion.

Let some opposing opinions in your head. Throw them around a little. Find the good in them and the bad. Offer REAL solutions to REAL problems. Send your message rationally and without the hype.

THAT is how we get back to real political discussion in this country.

Taft

if you have any opposing oppinions or ideas to share, i'd love to hear them. What would you do to solve alot of the problems facing the US right now (economy, whether or not to step in to the Israeli Palestinian conflict, immigration) I for one would decentralize the entire government and make it a State or County thing, allowing people to set up dozens of small governments that work as a team. Of course this would never happen because it would be way to hard for the FBI to keep track of you....or wait that's not the reason...it 's because we don't want people travelling in and out of our country on their own free will (but that would never happen). You say that I'm pushing my views upon people, but if you don't agree with me then I haven't pushed anything on you, it's that simple. I'm trying to throw out some radical ideas to get people thinking, not stifle discussion. I love hearing everyones views on our government, especially when they agree :cool:

[BongHits]

Originally posted by Taft


OK, I admit that I agree with many of the things you have said. I believe there is a strong conflict of interests in the Bush administration on a variety of fronts (oil, accounting, etc.). And though I believe in a higher power, I too think that organized religions have huge problems that derive from simple human nature (desire for money, power, sex, etc.).

But to get back to the point of this thread (I'm really trying hard here)...

The things I have a problem with are the factless/baseless accusations you make, the unwavering certainty and the decree-like style of your assertions, and the fact that yourpresent many problems, but no solutions. And as I said before, its this very type of action that squelches debate in this country.

Look at what I quoted. You derive your facts from a single (and from the sounds of it, very liberal) source. You admit that you don't have the facts on a few points. But then you end up saying, "Bush only looks out for #1. He's big business all the way. Conservatives = money grubbing bastards." This is the exact behavior of extreme liberals and conservatives and the same rhetoric that Ann Coulter simultaneously attacks and spews.

My point is that this is the exact kind of rhetoric that gets us no where. It skirts the facts, makes sweeping generalizations and accusations, and ends up labelling and namecalling with no definitive suggestion for a course of action. Its fluff.

How about calling for investigations into who knew what before 9/11? Or looking into Bush's past business ventures/supposed misdeeds? Or calling for an administration-independant task force to investigate accounting practices and intigate real reform? If you suggested these courses of action, many people would back you up (there are many calling for the same or similar solutions). And even if they didn't back you up, it might start the wheels working in their heads. "Maybe looking into it WOULD be a good idea..."

Find out the facts, form your opinion, then lay out your ideas for what needs to change. Then someone will undoubtedly come in and tell you that we disagree. Listen to their opinioins, consider them, then offer counter arguments or agreements.

Am I the only one here who sees this as a major roadblock to debate in our country right now??
Taft
you are correct indeed, i am extremely liberal (with a name like BongHits how could I not be?) I provide no solutions to problems because I cannot think of an easy solution. If there was one (i'd hope) somebody would have thought of it by now. I mean sH*t we could impeach bush but that would still leave everyone he's put into positions of power to carry out his dirty work. The only real solution I could ever think of is an entirely new system of government, or just reorganized. Our system of law is completely shot to hell, there are so many loopholes it's like trying to swat a fly with swiss cheese. There are very few facts on the argument im trying to make, otherwise bush would be long gone. So all my information is purely hypothetical and i'm just trying to figure out where you guys stand in all of this.

to avoid a double post, in response to edvniow, i too believe that the bible in entirely about symbolism. Im not trying to offend anyone with my 7 day comments, but it's just not (IMO) possible. Like you said, you can't take the bible word for word, or dismiss it as myth. I believe it's an account of what took place in history, but from a symbolic standpoint. Also the bible has been edited by the great (HAH!) kings of history and various cultures to fit their needs. I have read that Jesus believed the way to get in touch with god was through nature and being at peace with yourself, not kneeling on a bench in church, praying, and holding your hands together (i really do apologize for my crude interpretation of church, i have only been there for my cousins baptisms, my grandfather would be rolling in his grave if he knew how little I know about actually going to church). so basically edvniow i agree with you completely and Taft I think your comments have been the most helpful to me to not try and be so overzealous. Now that my ranting is (semi) finished you guys can get back to thetopic....wait what was the topic again???:p

[BongHits]

TAFT FOR PRESIDENT:D
you impress me with your rationalism

[Backtothemac]

Bonghits,

Dude, here is a bag, and a bong. Do what you do. Can you say extreme?

The voice of the GOP is alive and well, in people like myself. :)

[vniow]

Well, this has been an interesting thread, politics to religon to history to bongs to politics again. :p

[BongHits]

Originally posted by Backtothemac
Bonghits,

Dude, here is a bag, and a bong. Do what you do. Can you say extreme?

The voice of the GOP is alive and well, in people like myself. :)

HAHA i just realized...thats why im getting so worked up I HAVENT SMOKED TODAY!!!! but dont worry...im about to take care of that...

ok i'm feeling real ignorant right now? Who and what is the GOP? It seems like its a republican party or something. Wow that just discredited everything I've said hah
btw backtothemac you should advertise the general cybernetics thing a bit more. Had i known about the extra ram for free I would have picked up my mac from you guys. can you guys do anything for me on two 512 ram chips (max my mac)
email: bkonar@ameritech.net

of topic: is it supposed to take several hours tobackup a dvd?? I've been backing up apocalypse now redux since 6:30 and it's just finishing (8:40) and its really pissing me off because I don't want to leave my computer until its done

[jelloshotsrule]

Originally posted by BongHits
HAHA i just realized...thats why im getting so worked up I HAVENT SMOKED TODAY!!!! but dont worry...im about to take care of that...


you seriously need to smoke up to be "normal"?

[Taft]

Originally posted by Backtothemac
Bonghits,

Dude, here is a bag, and a bong. Do what you do. Can you say extreme?

The voice of the GOP is alive and well, in people like myself. :)

I was waiting for you to show up on this thread. From your conservative standpoint, do you think there are a lot of people on either side engaging in serious debate?

I personally see more petty squabbling than constructive debate. :(

Taft

[Taft]

Originally posted by jelloshotsrule


you seriously need to smoke up to be "normal"?

Not to be normal. To be mellow.

And I always object to the word 'need' in the same sentence as mary jane. :)

Taft

[BongHits]

Originally posted by jelloshotsrule


you seriously need to smoke up to be "normal"?

depends on your definition of normal...if you mean mellow and/or relaxed then i don't need to smoke up to be normal but it certainly helps take the edge off things...as for most people's definition of normal...if you need to do anything to get there you obviously have some issues that need to be worked out.

[jelloshotsrule]

Originally posted by BongHits
if you need to do anything to get there you obviously have some issues that need to be worked out.

good point. that's what i was gonna ask you

glad you made my point for me. :)

seriously though... there are better things to do than smoke pot (porn)

haha

[Taft]

Originally posted by jelloshotsrule

...
seriously though... there are better things to do than smoke pot (porn)

haha

Seems to me there is no reason they couldn't go together. Its called multitasking. :)

Taft

[Backtothemac]

Actually Taft,

I think you are right. For the most part they are just a bunch of clones running around pointing fingers at each other. If one says something good they take credit for it, and if it is something bad, they blame the other guy. Unreal. We have more constructive debates on these forums than they do on capital hill. There are only a few issues that make me a republican. I don't think that the Democratic party is evil, nor do I think the Republican party is perfect. I think there is a comonsense ballance between the two.

wow, we agree on something :eek:

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by Backtothemac


We have more constructive debates on these forums than they do on capital hill. There are only a few issues that make me a republican. I don't think that the Democratic party is evil, nor do I think the Republican party is perfect. I think there is a comonsense ballance between the two.

wow, we agree on something :eek:

here here!

i am a democrat and i think the republican party, most of it, is for the interests of the usa

i am just worried that the ultra conservatives, extremists on the right, have taken too much power in the gop

what happened to the small government (less spending?), pro business gop? the religious conservatives have changed the agenda...or the mostly liberal press has made it sound like the religious conservatives have made some inroads into the gop...i can't really tell sometimes

the gop friends i have are pretty much into reducing government spending and are not religious conservatives and some of my republican friends despise mixing religion with politics...very much so

...and about the comment about the supreme court choosing our president in 2000...damn stright they did and i don't like it...my gop friends also concur that the supreme court made the call...but they are relieved their man got in, but would have rather had george w bush win by a large margin

sept 11 brought many behind the president as it should be until we can get a handle on stopping the terrorists, and more importantly, on why they do what they do to avoid our next generation from having to fight them also

[wake up Jobs!!!]

GOP RULES!!!! LONG LIVE THE republican party!

GaBe-O

[zarathustra]

Originally posted by BongHits

...To zarathrusa: rather a "defender of the underrepresented". ummm....who does Bush defend that is underrepresented? The spanish population??I'm sure he's doing that out of the good will of his heart...

You misread my post. I am defending >>Bush supporters<< who are in a minority, to say the least, here. I by no means think of Bush as a defender of the underrepresented.

[mcrain]

Hey BTTM. Good to see ya buddy! Hope things are well with you.

Originally posted by jefhatfield
what happened to the small government (less spending?), pro business gop? the religious conservatives have changed the agenda...or the mostly liberal press has made it sound like the religious conservatives have made some inroads into the gop...i can't really tell sometimes

the gop friends i have are pretty much into reducing government spending and are not religious conservatives and some of my republican friends despise mixing religion with politics...very much so

...and about the comment about the supreme court choosing our president in 2000...damn stright they did and i don't like it...my gop friends also concur that the supreme court made the call...but they are relieved their man got in, but would have rather had george w bush win by a large margin

sept 11 brought many behind the president as it should be until we can get a handle on stopping the terrorists, and more importantly, on why they do what they do to avoid our next generation from having to fight them also

1. The GOP's interest in "smaller" government doesn't bother me so long as it is tempered with a Democratic party that pushes for government spending on behalf of environment, the poor, elderly, mentally ill, etc...

2. The GOP's interest in being pro-business is likewise fine, so long as it is tempered with a counter argument.

3. I DO however have a problem with the GOP's interest in smaller government when it comes to being pro-business. Throughout the 90's, the republican house and senate pushed for less and less government oversight of businesses. They eliminated the GAAP requirements, and guess what we have now... Enron, Worldcom, ect... Less government intrusion and regulation of daily life is fine, but when it comes to big business (and not so big), money is king, and without oversight, you see what happens.

4. From a legal viewpoint, I don't really care that the Supreme Court "selected" the president. That's ancient history. What I care about is that a Federal Court jumped into a dispute that involved purely a state law question as interpreted by the that state's highest state court, and said that its interpretation of that state's law was superior to the state supreme court. That, my friends, is an historical precedent that fundamentally changes the scope and breadth of power the U.S. Supreme Court can wield.

5. There are a lot of things being said right now by democrats that are critical of Bush Jr. that sound a lot like the things the GOP was saying about Clinton. There are a lot of things democrats say in support of Clinton that sound a lot like the things the GOP said in support of Reagan in the 90's. The fundamental rule of politics is that you say whatever makes your "candidate" look good and the other side look bad, even if it logically can not coincide with arguments you made before when things were reversed.

As for the "voice of the GOP," it's still there, but one thing no one has pointed out is that the current President has a serious affinity to secrecy. As such, there are a lot of things that don't get into the public eye, and thus are not discussed. The GOP doesn't want to step on the President's toes (too much), so they keep their mouthes shut on a lot of things, thus, a perceived decline in the "voice" of the GOP.

My humble $0.02.

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by zarathustra


You misread my post. I am defending >>Bush supporters<< who are in a minority, to say the least, here. I by no means think of Bush as a defender of the underrepresented.

more than ever, minorities, poor white people, and uneducated people are voting for the gop...once demographics which were solidly democratic

yuppies, the educated, and the newly rich seem to learn toward the democrats

at this rate, in another 50 years, the gop will be the party of the working man and the democrats will be the party of the rich and elite

if i were alive then, i would then switch to the republicans

right now, the party that is still the bastion of the rich and elite, barely, are the republicans and since i am not one of them, frankly, i don't see myself voting for them

there are certain issues the gop champions that i agree with like deregulation of small business, right to bear arms, support of israel, and support for the military, but the democrat's issues of social welfare, affordable medical care, backing of unions, and social liberalism makes me a democrat...but barely, by a thread

i can see myself voting for christine todd whitman or colin powell, both moderates

but to be perfectly honest, nixon thru george w were or are moderates and gop conservatives were or are barry goldwater, david duke, pat robertson, and pat buchannan (goldwater and robertson have compassion, duke is a nut, and buchannan is seventy years behind in his thinking)

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by mcrain
Hey BTTM. Good to see ya buddy! Hope things are well with you.





3. I DO however have a problem with the GOP's interest in smaller government when it comes to being pro-business. Throughout the 90's, the republican house and senate pushed for less and less government oversight of businesses. They eliminated the GAAP requirements, and guess what we have now... Enron, Worldcom, ect... Less government intrusion and regulation of daily life is fine, but when it comes to big business (and not so big), money is king, and without oversight, you see what happens.


generally accepted accounting practices!!!

...eliminated? wow, what??? talk about fuzzzzy math

that is too dangerous and ripe for corruption...i guess it may take 100 years before i would become a republican, then

i thought GAAP was untouchable?

and being that there are no gop lawyers out there 'cept the five that sit in the supreme court ;)

[mcrain]

It wasn't that they GOT RID of GAAP, what they did was eliminated the requirement that certain SEC reports and public disclosures meet GAAP requirements. They basically allowed companies to play around with the capital cost numbers (just like enron and worldcom did).

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by mcrain
It wasn't that they GOT RID of GAAP, what they did was eliminated the requirement that certain SEC reports and public disclosures meet GAAP requirements. They basically allowed companies to play around with the capital cost numbers (just like enron and worldcom did).

i have heard some gop supporters blame clinton/gore for enron and worldcomm

remember the pix of clinton and the enron ceo playing golf in newsweek...it looked bad and was put out right after the scandal

i wonder what bttm would say about this?...i am sure he has an opinion on the clinton-enron "connection";)

[BongHits]

didn't enron contribute large amounts of cash to the bush campaign? i wonder where the connection really lies...:eek:

[Taft]

Originally posted by jefhatfield


i have heard some gop supporters blame clinton/gore for enron and worldcomm

remember the pix of clinton and the enron ceo playing golf in newsweek...it looked bad and was put out right after the scandal

i wonder what bttm would say about this?...i am sure he has an opinion on the clinton-enron "connection";)

A lot of people are criticizing Clinton/Gore for a lax stance on enforcing accounting rules. And also for under funding the SEC and making the SEC more lax towards the policies.

But you certainly can't attack them for altering (loosening) tax or accounting policies. As mcrain said, it was congress (which was republican controlled at the time) who did that.

But this is all just finger pointing. Both dems and reps took campaign contributions from Enron and the others. Big business doesn't have only reps on their payroll, the dems are just as guilty.

The difference is the political stance of the parties. Where reps are generally more lax towards business (let money control how people act, it will all work out), dems are generally less trusting (we must monitor and control businesses for the welfare of the people). That is their general stance. But in the wake of these corporate scandals, it would be political suicide to argue against stricter controls on business.

Its so nice to see the two parties coming together to stop corporate coruption just to protect their own asses. :rolleyes:

Taft

[Taft]

Originally posted by BongHits
didn't enron contribute large amounts of cash to the bush campaign? i wonder where the connection really lies...:eek:

They also contributed a lot to democrats, too. Neither party is "innocent" when it comes to this.

Taft

[mcrain]

Originally posted by jefhatfield
i have heard some gop supporters blame clinton/gore for enron and worldcomm

remember the pix of clinton and the enron ceo playing golf in newsweek...it looked bad and was put out right after the scandal

Actually, that golf round was somehow not what it appeared to be. But, before sticking my foot in my mouth, let me research a bit.

[mcrain]

Here, read this:

http://www.motherjones.com/news_wire/bushboys.html

[mcrain]

Try this too:

http://www.arktimes.com/brummett/030102brummett.html

[mcrain]

Wow, look at these search results.

http://google.yahoo.com/bin/query?p=impeach+w+bush&hc=0&hs=0

The republicans got their guy in office buy trying to assassinate the character of the then sitting president (Clinton), his wife and his VP. Now, W has to live in a political climate where he will be challenged, and the sanctity of the presidency is about as precious as that turd that just won't fall off when you're late for work. Thank the ol GOP for that.