Is anyone out there STILL a Republican?

[Bob Hubbard]

I ain't no Republican, never have and never will be (registered independent) I however do vote Republican many times and did vote for Bush. I have to say though I'm getting quite disappointed with the guy. Then again Bush maybe at has lowest point. Clinton had the same low approval rating at a time so I guess Bush may turn things around soon, hopefully.

I would vote libertarion but as we all know they are only a minority party and don't want to waste my vote.

Maybe 3rd times the charm?


I really hate this "waste my vote" crap. Sorry, but if you voted for someone who doesn't fit your "ideal", then I think you did waste your vote. It's that attitude that keeps the smaller parties from growing. I think if 1/4 of the "dont want to waste my vote, so I'll just pick one of the big 2 even though I know they both suck" people would vote for a 3rd party group, it would blow the minds of the "big 2". It could be huge. Sorry, no attack meant here, but I vote for who I think is right for the job, regardless of who really stands a chance of winning. My vote counts that way, even in defeat. Just my opinion.

 

[Henderson]

I really hate this "waste my vote" crap. Sorry, but if you voted for someone who doesn't fit your "ideal", then I think you did waste your vote.

Damn right, Bob!

 

[mantis]

i was never a republican
but i want to be now
they're funny.. arent they?
the lead the best comedy shows.. but too bad our media channels put them on the wrong shows.. like under 'news' or something

 

[sgtmac_46]

Yeah, she must have thought AT LEAST as much of Bin Laden as Bush does:



(by the way, that comes right from whitehouse.gov, not from Randi Rhodes)

Well, it's obvious you're willing to distort and take out of context, so allow me to grant you some perspective. I guess it only has impact taken out of context. That may be why you don't link it or date it...I find that very telling.


http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html

What you refer to is taken from a speech in 2002. The question was:

"Q Mr. President, in your speeches now you rarely talk or mention Osama bin Laden. Why is that? Also, can you tell the American people if you have any more information, if you know if he is dead or alive? Final part -- deep in your heart, don't you truly believe that until you find out if he is dead or alive, you won't really eliminate the threat of -- "

"THE PRESIDENT: Deep in my heart I know the man is on the run, if he's alive at all. Who knows if he's hiding in some cave or not; we haven't heard from him in a long time. And the idea of focusing on one person is -- really indicates to me people don't understand the scope of the mission."

"Terror is bigger than one person. And he's just -- he's a person who's now been marginalized. His network, his host government has been destroyed. He's the ultimate parasite who found weakness, exploited it, and met his match. He is -- as I mentioned in my speech, I do mention the fact that this is a fellow who is willing to commit youngsters to their death and he, himself, tries to hide -- if, in fact, he's hiding at all. "

"Q But don't you believe that the threat that bin Laden posed won't truly be eliminated until he is found either dead or alive? "

"Well, as I say, we haven't heard much from him. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him. "



That's FAR different from ignoring him for 8 YEARS, and allowing him to develop a command and control structure. While Bush was making THESE statements, members of the US military were hunting down and killing members of al-Qaeda. Clinton managed to bomb some empty tents in the desert once.

I don't know...maybe if Bush had EVEN ONE principals' meeting to discuss terrorism sometime between 1/20/01 and 9/11/01. Or maybe if he had bothered to read the PDB entitled "Bin Laden determined to strike in US." That probably would have been at least as relevant as Janet Reno's actions in 1993. Richard Clarke thought Bin Laden was a VERY big deal. But Bush didn't meet with him either.

Are you suggesting Bush could have done in 8 months what Clinton didn't do in 8 years? I agree.

Funny, Clarke was around for most of the Clinton administration, he was there when the Cole was attacked, why didn't Clinton listen to him?

You'll condemn Bush for the 8 months between him taking office and 9/11, but you'll refuse to acknowledge 8 YEARS of inept leadership that led up to it. Remember, Clarke was Clinton's Terrorism Czar. Where was Clarke whenever Clinton was ignoring bin Laden?

When was the World Trade Center attacked for the first time again? When did al-Qaeda conduct coordinated attacks against embassies in Africa? When did al-Qaeda attack the USS Cole? 9/11 didn't just happen, it was being fore-shadowed for over 8 years. Clinton did nothing. Bush came to office in the last 8 months of the planning of 9/11. al-Qaeda did not just appear in January 2001, much as you'd like to spin it to look like it did. Had Clinton done his job, there would have been no 9/11.

Most of the operatives and leaders, including the head of the CIA George Tenet, were Clinton appointees who were continuing to operate under Clinton rules of engagement for the first 8 months of Bush's presidency. What Bush DIDN'T do was alter Clinton's incompetent policies. If you want to criticize Bush NOT doing anything different from Clinton immediately after taking officer, and NOT firing his incompetent flunkies, then you will have a good case, and i'll join in your criticism. Bush allowed Clinton's appointees to continue to operate as they had under Clinton.

If, however, you want to make the claim that Clinton's plan was good, and Bush somehow came along and caused 9/11, you're living in a fantasy world. It wasn't what Bush did, it was what Bush didn't do in not changing the course set by Clinton that helped seal the final fate of 9/11. That is Bush's error.

 

[michaeledward]

I love the attacks on Clinton ... Talk about funny.

Kane ... Please review Clinton's poll numbers throughout the eight years of his presidency. Although he did take a hit in 1994 ... a result of trying to provide health insurance to the 33 million uninsured Americans ... his poll numbers were never as low as Bush's.

How many uninsured Americans did I say? ... ...well its nice to see some things have improved in 12 years.

 

[Don Roley]

So, would the Republicans in the house please tell me what they think of their party?

Just fine.

Let us put this in perspective. This is not like the time that about 500 confidential FBI folders of the Clinton's enemies were found in the White House against the laws of the land.

If you bother to look at the facts being laid out, these cases of the NSA looking at people in America were in situations where these people had electronic trails leading back to terrorists outside the US. The president did not give carte blanche to spy on any American. He gave permision in only a few cases, so few that he approved each and every one.

Honestly! If you find a terrorist in Irag on top of a pile of phamplets about destroying America, a few bodies and a ton of explosive as well as a lot of phone calls to someone who moved to Atlanta a few years ago from Taliban ruled Afghanstan, would you honestly say we can't investigate them just because they are within the borders of America?

Or are you still on the whole 'bird flu is a conspiracy to divert attention' type of crusade?

 

[Makalakumu]

One recount, yes, two recounts, yes, a dozen requested and paid for by different organizations, including the New York Times? Not a chance.

Sure this is wiki, but you can check their sources if you like. I have. This information is correct.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_2000#Media_post-electoral_studies.2Frecounts




Diagrams from The New York Times supporting its claim that a full state-wide recount under every scenario would have gone to Gore.

 

[Makalakumu]

give other sources, because you know there are many that don't support what you say.

This is not my responsability. If you have information that can counter a claim, then post it...which is exactly what I did. Someone claimed that the New York Times did a study that showed that Bush won in 2000 based on the recounts and I flat out refuted it. And if you bother to read the links and sources posted, you'll see that the entire premise that Bush would have won any recount is false. Sour grapes anyone?

 

[sgtmac_46]

I love the attacks on Clinton ... Talk about funny.

Kane ... Please review Clinton's poll numbers throughout the eight years of his presidency. Although he did take a hit in 1994 ... a result of trying to provide health insurance to the 33 million uninsured Americans ... his poll numbers were never as low as Bush's.

How many uninsured Americans did I say? ... ...well its nice to see some things have improved in 12 years.

Ridicule does not an argument make. Also, poll ratings are not a defense of Clinton's job performance, as they are only an indicator of how well the media circled the wagons around him.

I do appreciate your attempt to dodge any attempt at defending the ineptness of 8 years of failed policy on international terrorism that led up to 9/11, following terrorist attack after terrorist attack during the 1990's.

Instead, you use the usual tactics...if the facts are against you...change the subject.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Just fine.

Let us put this in perspective. This is not like the time that about 500 confidential FBI folders of the Clinton's enemies were found in the White House against the laws of the land.

If you bother to look at the facts being laid out, these cases of the NSA looking at people in America were in situations where these people had electronic trails leading back to terrorists outside the US. The president did not give carte blanche to spy on any American. He gave permision in only a few cases, so few that he approved each and every one.

Honestly! If you find a terrorist in Irag on top of a pile of phamplets about destroying America, a few bodies and a ton of explosive as well as a lot of phone calls to someone who moved to Atlanta a few years ago from Taliban ruled Afghanstan, would you honestly say we can't investigate them just because they are within the borders of America?

Or are you still on the whole 'bird flu is a conspiracy to divert attention' type of crusade?

Well, see, that's the difference. The Republicans have spent their time investigating terrorists and enemies of America who want to kill American citizens.

Democrats have spent their time investigating republicans and their own political enemies. I guess it's all based on what you think is important. Enemies lists by the Clinton's is justified, because Republican's are 'meanies', and the 'REAL enemy'. But don't you DARE spy on terrorists!

 

[Kane]

Maybe 3rd times the charm?


I really hate this "waste my vote" crap. Sorry, but if you voted for someone who doesn't fit your "ideal", then I think you did waste your vote. It's that attitude that keeps the smaller parties from growing. I think if 1/4 of the "dont want to waste my vote, so I'll just pick one of the big 2 even though I know they both suck" people would vote for a 3rd party group, it would blow the minds of the "big 2". It could be huge. Sorry, no attack meant here, but I vote for who I think is right for the job, regardless of who really stands a chance of winning. My vote counts that way, even in defeat. Just my opinion.

I agree with you to a certain extent, but if I vote for someone that may not have a chance in winning then my vote will be wasted in the end. Where as if I vote for someone that sort of fits my ideal at least some stuff will get done. I do believe in a government that protects its people more than controlling the means of production, and Bush is also in support of this. So although I loose some I still gain in other feilds in my vote.

Then again Bush doesn't totally fit my beliefs on economy as I do want some degree of universal health care. But at the same time I am for privatizing the schools. So in reality I loose no matter what .

 

[BlueDragon1981]

Well, see, that's the difference. The Republicans have spent their time investigating terrorists and enemies of America who want to kill American citizens.

Democrats have spent their time investigating republicans and their own political enemies. I guess it's all based on what you think is important. Enemies lists by the Clinton's is justified, because Republican's are 'meanies', and the 'REAL enemy'. But don't you DARE spy on terrorists!

lol...once again an attack on the party....let me guess your a republican. More fuel for the argument that party system is creating inefficiencies.

 

[Marginal]

More fuel for the argument that party system is creating inefficiencies.

It was designed to introduce such inefficiencies.

 

[sgtmac_46]

lol...once again an attack on the party....let me guess your a republican. More fuel for the argument that party system is creating inefficiencies.

Hmmmmm. As if this whole thread wasn't 'an attack on the party'.

Pot, thou art black as the kettle.


If you want to see true inefficiency, examine the coalition system of multiple party governments. Take the UN for example. Now that's TRUE efficiency. :lol:

 

[Cryozombie]

i was never a republican
but i want to be now
they're funny.. arent they?
the lead the best comedy shows.. but too bad our media channels put them on the wrong shows.. like under 'news' or something

You know... thats horribly funny...


On the republican side you have a bunch of "News People" who are nothing but clowns, and on the flip side you have comedians passing themselves off as "news people"

Total Opposites.

 

[michaeledward]

If you want to see true inefficiency, examine the coalition system of multiple party governments. Take the UN for example. Now that's TRUE efficiency.

Yes ... Let's hear it for the efficiency of, oh, say .. Saddam Hussein's government. Iraq under Hussein was incredibly efficient. Outside of the ability to win Olympic medals, basically, anything he wanted, he got.

Of course ... I'ld be willing to bet that you are not a fan of efficiency that much, right?

 

[FearlessFreep]

That's a red herring at best.

The orginal set up of checks and balances between branches was designed to be inefficient. Concentrated power that can be executed unilaterally and quickly was seen as dangerous; probably still is. If you have several groups with diverse powers that they can execute over each other, then you avoid tyranny

The system now is rigged pretty much toward dealing with two parties. Rather than having 3, 5 or more major parties with major representation in the congress, we have two, and those two subsume any movements, so the two parties lurch from one side to the other whithin themselves, and then come to the congrees, or presidency, largely unified. The battles over philosophy and direction happen within the two parties, rather than between. Most people who would be Green end up Democrat, most people who would be Constitution Party end up Republican, so the arguments over the Green issues and Constitution issues happen within the party, not between seperate political entities

Many countries have multiple parties that hold sufficient seats in their governing bodies that no one party holds enough of a majority, so you have coalitions and agreements being formed ad-hoc and temporarily as part of the process of government. In the US, these coalitions are formed largely within the two parties, seperate from the governing process, so the two parties come to the governing process largely united with a single agenda. The US two party system is thus actually much more efficient at getting something done then you see in many other places.

The system is designed to be somewhat inefficient, and must be so

Now, the downside to that, and where the issue of inefficiancy really becomes an issue, is that the debate between the two parties has become not based on different philosophies of how to govern, thus protecting people from a single power, but has beome a turf war both between the parties and between the branches of government. The Republicans are more concerned with the numerical differences with the Democrats than they really are with the philosophical differences, and vice versa. And it's that constant power struggle for the sake of power itself that has turned the designed-in inefficiency into a mess

So, what should be an inefficiency in executing power unilaterally has become an inefficiency in utilizing power meaningfully

 

[Kane]

Yes ... Let's hear it for the efficiency of, oh, say .. Saddam Hussein's government. Iraq under Hussein was incredibly efficient. Outside of the ability to win Olympic medals, basically, anything he wanted, he got.

Of course ... I'ld be willing to bet that you are not a fan of efficiency that much, right?

Are you that blind in your anti-war crap that you would even dare to support someone like Saddam Hussein, mass murderer? Whether you supported the war or not, I find it hard to believe that a liberal would prefer an oppressive dictatorship over democracy.

So do you think Cambodia was efficient too under Pol Pot? Heck Stalin brought the USSR from a nation of pitchfork farmers into a mighty superpower. Do you think he was a good leader too? How about Hitler? Before he went to war he was a pretty good leader too eh? He brought the German economy back into a superpower's economy.

 

[Marginal]

Are you that blind in your anti-war crap that you would even dare to support someone like Saddam Hussein, mass murderer? Whether you supported the war or not, I find it hard to believe that a liberal would prefer an oppressive dictatorship over democracy.

The point was that dictatorships are more efficient forms of government. Efficient doesn't mean good, better or superior. Things done faster aren't always done well.

 

[michaeledward]

The point was that dictatorships are more efficient forms of government. Efficient doesn't mean good, better or superior. Things done faster aren't always done well.

Thank you.

I don't know why I try to explain things to Kane. It really is insane; doing the same thing, over and over again, expecting a different result.

Cheers.