Is anyone out there STILL a Republican?

[sgtmac_46]

When the split is 50 - 50, one only has to manipulate 1 or 2 percent. The rest of the votes need to come legitimately.

Again, predicated on the argument that 'if it COULD have happened, it MUST have happened.....if I don't agree with the election results that is'.

 

[Makalakumu]

Again, predicated on the argument that 'if it COULD have happened, it MUST have happened.....if I don't agree with the election results that is'.

Even "if" it did happen, losing the other 48 to 49 percent of the vote is a bigger problem.

 

[michaeledward]

This article sheds an interesting light on the upcoming confirmation hearings.

The President has nominated someone for the Supreme Court who in the past has argued that in the interest of National Security, the 4th Amendment really shouldn't be seen as binding.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/23/AR2005122301566.html

How convienent.

 

[Gary Crawford]

michealedward!! Still stirring it up I see. I won't waste my time trying to reason with you,you'll never change! lol Merry Xmas to you!

 

[michaeledward]

And now the attacks come on the military service of John Murtha.

 

[bustr]

to me it's very difficult to find a diff between republicans and democrats
except that democrats do what the republicans do smartly and not as bluntly..
oh and they party harder maybe haha
but it's still hard to believe a huge nation like the americans is only represented in 2 parties!

It's simple. Republicans look out for big corporations. They borrow from the federal reserve then fund wars where halliburton, carlyle and big oil make lots of money. The FR and the big corps (own by the same robber barons) have a guaranteed income and the debt is passed on to the population. That way even when the super rich pay taxes they are paying it back to themselves. Also they favor policies that are at odds with the well-being of working people. Safety and environmental regulations are an inconvenience to big corps and only unimportant peasents die when they are not enforced. Repubs talk about ending abortion but only one republican (Ron Paul-Tx) has ever submitted legislation that would take abortion out of the jurisdiction of the federal courts. Repubs always break their promises when it comes to social policies

Democrats get some corporate backing. However they don't serve the military/industrial complex. They don't fund un-needed military buildup for un-needed wars against unreal threats. They tend not to borrow and they favor fair labor practices, equality, human rights and safety and environmental regulations. The worse thing about the democrats is that all too often they roll over for the facist republicans.

 

[sgtmac_46]

It's simple. Republicans look out for big corporations. They borrow from the federal reserve then fund wars where halliburton, carlyle and big oil make lots of money. The FR and the big corps (own by the same robber barons) have a guaranteed income and the debt is passed on to the population. That way even when the super rich pay taxes they are paying it back to themselves. Also they favor policies that are at odds with the well-being of working people. Safety and environmental regulations are an inconvenience to big corps and only unimportant peasents die when they are not enforced. Repubs talk about ending abortion but only one republican (Ron Paul-Tx) has ever submitted legislation that would take abortion out of the jurisdiction of the federal courts. Repubs always break their promises when it comes to social policies

Democrats get some corporate backing. However they don't serve the military/industrial complex. They don't fund un-needed military buildup for un-needed wars against unreal threats. They tend not to borrow and they favor fair labor practices, equality, human rights and safety and environmental regulations. The worse thing about the democrats is that all too often they roll over for the facist republicans.

Same ole' class warfare rhetoric we've been hearing from the leftists for decades and decades. The heck of it is, if they ever manage to gain power, they screw things up worse than they were before.

 

[bustr]

Same ole' class warfare rhetoric we've been hearing from the leftists for decades and decades. The heck of it is, if they ever manage to gain power, they screw things up worse than they were before.

It's the truth though.

 

[Shaolin Bushido]

Thanks for asking, I'm a republican. I once was a concerned, responsible, American but I grew selfish and insecure.

I see. Yup ... you are a Republican.

 

[tradrockrat]

It's the truth though.

but it sure ain't the whole truth, and that's the problem with threads like this - nobody is going to learn anything new and nobody is going to change their mind about anything.

 

[sgtmac_46]

It's the truth though.

It's 'Pravda' truth.....which means it's value as 'truth' is questionable, but it's value to your cause is not. Of course, as Lenin said, 'A lie told often enough becomes the truth'....I see you guys are still up to the old tricks.
.

 

[michaeledward]

but it sure ain't the whole truth, and that's the problem with threads like this - nobody is going to learn anything new and nobody is going to change their mind about anything.

Well, I have a pretty low opinion of Republicans to start with. But I have learned new things in the past few weeks about the Republican Party; one of which was why this thread was started.

I would say, if you haven't learned anything new about being a Republican in the past two or three months, you haven't been paying attention. Let me give you an example.

Individuals can contribute to Politicians, their campaigns, and Political Action Committees.

Businesses can not contribute to Politicians, their campaigns, or Political Action Committees.

Indian Tribes .. how are they treated? Well ... according to 'the rules', Indian Tribes are treated like Individuals to a certain extent; they can make contributions directly to Politicians and their campaigns and PACs. But there is an exception, that no one else gets for Indian tribes; they are not subject to limits individuals are subject too, apparently because there are many members of the tribe <<shrugg>>. I don't get it.

Anyhow ... this little exception allows Jack Abramoff to take money from Native American Indian Tribes and 'grease the skids' of Congress. (Republicans) ... The really 'Republican' part of this though, is Abramoff didn't use any money from the Indian tribes. He used the proceeds from the Casinos.

(tinfoil hat time folks) - It puts a whole new light on President Bush's vain attempt to define soveriegnty.

http://www.campchaos.com/show.php?iID=868

 

[Bigshadow]

they are not subject to limits individuals are subject too, apparently because there are many members of the tribe <<shrugg>>. I don't get it.

Anyhow ... he really 'Republican' part of this though, is Abramoff didn't use any money from the Indian tribes. He used the proceeds from the Casinos.

Maybe there is a connection?

Actually I am registered republican but over the years I have come to realize that in the grander scheme of things, both Demoncrats and Republicans follow the same agenda. People are voting for the right and left hand of the same body. It really is charades. My political view point is well outside the sandbox that the two parties play in.

 

[jdinca]

In an effort to stave off revisionist history, here's a link to the list of Democrats that have received money from Abramoff.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1551786/posts

Draw your own conclusions.

 

[michaeledward]

In an effort to stave off revisionist history, here's a link to the list of Democrats that have received money from Abramoff.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1551786/posts

Draw your own conclusions.

We'll see ...

It is my understanding, that No Democrats received money from Abramoff ... This list show contributions from organizations that were Abramoff clients to Democrats.

There is, I believe a distinction between 'Abramoff' and 'Indian Tribe'.

It may be too subtle a distinction for some, such as the Prestigious MNJohnny, who has posted this list.

But, let us start the digging ... and see where it ends.


P.S..... for the curious ... I might suggest navigating to www.opensecrets.org

On the start page, they have a view that allows you to see contributions BY DONOR. Try looking at Jack and Pamela Abramoff.

Revisionist History indeed.

 

[jdinca]

You are correct that no democrats received direct contributions from Abramoff. The highest amount given was $8,000. Look at the list of money donated by Abramoff on behalf of his clients, the Indian tribes. I don't see a huge difference between the two. He played both sides to get what he wanted. Both sides were greedy enough to take the money.

 

[bustr]

Same ole' class warfare rhetoric we've been hearing from the leftists for decades and decades. The heck of it is, if they ever manage to gain power, they screw things up worse than they were before.

All you have to do is follow the money to see why bush is waging these wars.

Things Republicans Believe

21. The Caspian pipeline and non-existent WMDs a valid reasons for sacrificing American lives at the alter of big business but speaking out against it is class warfare.

but it sure ain't the whole truth, and that's the problem with threads like this - nobody is going to learn anything new and nobody is going to change their mind about anything.

Conservatives can't change their minds. Changing their minds when presented with truth would make them liberal by definition.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Conservatives can't change their minds. Changing their minds when presented with truth would make them liberal by definition.

You could start by actually providing some truth....instead of rehashed internet conspiracy theories. By the way, 'liberal' is not the right term for the political philosophy you've been endorsing. The proper term is 'leftist' and there's nothing remotely progressive about that.

Capitalism, as it is practiced in the west, has brought what prosperity exists on this planet. You can try and debate that point, but you're really just fighting with reality.

 

[michaeledward]

You are correct that no democrats received direct contributions from Abramoff. The highest amount given was $8,000. Look at the list of money donated by Abramoff on behalf of his clients, the Indian tribes. I don't see a huge difference between the two. He played both sides to get what he wanted. Both sides were greedy enough to take the money.

The highest amount given is because there are campaign finance laws in place, that dictate the maximum amount and individual can contribute. These laws were put in place to prevent those with the means from buying influence.

So, comparing Abramoff's personal contribution to the Indian Tribe contributions begs the question .... why are tribes not prevented from buying influence with campaign limits?

Secondly, correlation does not equal causation.

That the Indian tribes have given money to Democrats does not mean that Abramoff directed those contributions. That will make for an interesting discussion. And, if Abramoff did direct those contributions, the back-up singers are warming up, and we'll here Mr. Abramoff singing about it soon.

Please note, the party pleading guilty to 'fraud', 'tax evasion', and 'conspiracy to bribe public officials' was not any of the ten Native American Indian clients of Mr. Abramoff.

 

[bustr]

You could start by actually providing some truth....instead of rehashed internet conspiracy theories. By the way, 'liberal' is not the right term for the political philosophy you've been endorsing. The proper term is 'leftist' and there's nothing remotely progressive about that.

Capitalism, as it is practiced in the west, has brought what prosperity exists on this planet. You can try and debate that point, but you're really just fighting with reality.

You could try not putting words in my mouth. Capitalism doesn't equal corruption any more than more than communism does. I'm speaking out against a corrupt government. And incidentally it was unions not corporations who gave us the 40 hour week and time and a half beyond that. You can try and debate that point, but you're really just fighting with reality.:uhyeah: