PDA

View Full Version : Conservative Republicans


foxman
03-12-2008, 02:01 PM
Anyone?

I consider myself to be a conservative Republican.....with a very limited knowledge of politics.

I have been asked to try to dissuade someone planning on voting Obama and while I have some perceptions I am curious what are the primary factual issues with Obama and can you provide a link to support not voting for him?

I don't care to create a flame war and am not interested in hearing about how great Obama is, so save your effort.

BucEyedPea
03-12-2008, 02:17 PM
I added two tags.

Mr. Laz
03-12-2008, 02:20 PM
conservative ......... republicans


???? i didn't know they even existed anymore :eek:

DaKCMan AP
03-12-2008, 02:25 PM
http://editorialcartoonists.com/cartoons/WahlA/2008/WahlA20080305_low.jpg

BucEyedPea
03-12-2008, 02:26 PM
I'd encourage them to vote for Obama, if they want to avoid WWIV. That should do it.

StcChief
03-12-2008, 02:27 PM
I'd encourage them to vote for Obama, if they want to avoid WWIV. That should do it.or that we will refuse to fight in a WWIII or WWIV. so you'll be safe at home.

BucEyedPea
03-12-2008, 02:28 PM
You'll be safer with the peacemakers.

Cochise
03-12-2008, 02:28 PM
HOW CAN YOU OPPOSE OPTIMISM11/1/1?? HOW CAN YOU OPPOSE A BRIGHT FUTURE FOR EVERYONE!?!?!? HOW CAN YOU OPPOSE HELPING PEOPLE!?!???

SNR
03-12-2008, 02:32 PM
My biggest beef with him that nobody talks about at all is he's not only spending money like Democrats do, but he's not even spending it on good things. From a speech of his, he wants to increase foreign aid from 1 to 2 percent of our annual budget! Tax cuts for the middle class are absolutely stupid. How about just not taxing them as much money in the first place? This will go well for lots of people and them like Obama, but it's not going to do anything beneficial to the economy (stimulus packages of ANY kind no matter WHO receives them don't work) and it's only going to create the illusion of economic health, which DOESN'T EXIST.

Foriegn policy wise I trust him to be a better diplomat to other nations than Bush, or maybe perhaps even Clinton. But the other thing is he's getting a lot of anti-war people excited about him but he definitely isn't the candidate they're looking for. He's not proposing immediate withdrawal in the safest timeliest manner... he wants this "working towards bringing all troops home in 4 years" nonsense. That's absolutely ridiculous. Take them all out or keep them all there. I'm no military expert, but it's pretty conclusive throughout history that the fewer men you have to complete a mission, the greater the danger you put those men into and the less likely you'll succeed in your goal. And no, the US Army is NOT the 300 Spartans.

Also, this election we're likely to see a House, Senate, and White House that is controlled by the Dems. They're going to get their healthcare system (unless the Congress sucks as much has it has the past two years) that they want so desperately, and Obama wants to do it "with unity". That's utter bullshit. There's an entire party that disagrees with your platform, and there's MEANT to be disagreement about a plan. Preaching that we all come together as one is idealistic, stupid, and not real at all. This is the American political system for crying out loud.

And on that same track, don't get me started how many people he's been able to brainwash into his camp. It's effective and I admire him for it, but good God, every time I see a young hippy teenager with a dumbass Obama shirt handing out materials shouting stuff like "Vote Obama for change!" I want to grab a purse from the nearest woman and use it as a barf bag.

DaKCMan AP
03-12-2008, 02:41 PM
http://editorialcartoonists.com/cartoons/BenneC/2008/BenneC20080308_low.jpg

Cave Johnson
03-12-2008, 02:54 PM
Tell him Barry Hussein Obama, who hates America so much he won't wear a flag pin or put his hand over his heart, is financing his terrorist sleeper cell by selling coke. And he's for reparations.

SNR
03-12-2008, 02:55 PM
http://editorialcartoonists.com/cartoons/BenneC/2008/BenneC20080308_low.jpgYep. McCain is pretty much Bush with a larger vocabulary

|Zach|
03-12-2008, 02:57 PM
Great thread. I don't know why I don't like Obama so I want you people tell me why I shouldn't like him. So I can in turn try to convince someone and act like I know what I am talking about.

patteeu
03-12-2008, 04:01 PM
Great question, foxman. I don't have time right now to go into all the policy based arguments against Obama, but I'll give you a couple for now and I'll come back later with a few more.

Let's start with the big picture. Spending. Spending A LOT. The National Taxpayer's Union (http://www.ntu.org/main/press.php?PressID=995&org_name=NTUF) has analyzed the campaign promises of all the major presidential candidates and it's not too surprising to find out that Obama comes out on top of the Big Spenders list. In terms of new spending proposed, here are the results of the study:

Obama $307.3 billion
Hillary $226.1 billion
McCain $6.9 billion

All this whining about how Bush is spending so much money on the war and being fiscally irresponsible turns out to be nothing but hot air. Both democrat candidates would divert any savings they generated by irresponsibly withdrawing from Iraq into new spending programs and then they'd have to come up with $ billions more (in Obama's case over $100 billion) to fund all their pie in the sky schemes.

For Immediate Release Mar 3, 2008
For Further Information, Contact:
Peter J. Sepp, Demian Brady, (703) 683-5700
Obama's Fiscal Agenda Now Tops $300 Billion, Almost 36 Percent Higher than Clinton's, Updated Study Calculates

(Alexandria, VA) -- As Presidential contenders Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton race toward a key electoral showdown tomorrow, updated findings from the National Taxpayers Union Foundation's (NTUF's) candidate cost analysis project show that their federal budget proposals are racing ahead as well. According to neutral data, Obama's platform would boost yearly federal spending by $307.3 billion compared to Clinton's $226.1 billion -- both measurably higher totals since NTUF began examining the candidates' plans earlier this year.

"Since we released our first report on January 29, candidates Obama and Clinton have upped the ante on their campaign proposals by $20.3 billion and $7.9 billion, respectively," said NTUF Senior Policy Analyst Demian Brady. "That's the equivalent of nearly $1 billion of political promises for every day they've been on the campaign trail between then and now."

In late January NTUF provided cost estimates -- based on hard data -- for more than 450 of the major candidates' proposals that would affect the federal budget (at that time eight candidates were studied). NTUF assumed the most conservative cost estimates of federal outlays based on a variety of sources, including the candidates' own projections; summaries from the Congressional Budget Office, Congressional Research Service, and the White House Office of Management and Budget; and results from equivalent legislation from NTUF's BillTally cost accounting system. Among the latest findings:

* Since January 29, Barack Obama has outlined 34 additional policies that could have an impact on the federal budget (some are new proposals while others are expansions of existing proposals). These items add $20.3 billion in annualized spending to Obama's $287.0 billion total that NTUF originally calculated.
* Among Obama's larger new initiatives are a "National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank" ($6 billion), a New Orleans Hurricane Protection System ($1.6 billion), and a new "Universal Mortgage Credit" (the refundable portion of which could raise outlays by $4.4 billion).
* Hillary Clinton has offered or clarified 24 proposals that would increase her original $218.2 billion agenda total to $226.1 billion. Clinton's new items include financial literacy for adults ($250 million) and weatherization/energy efficiency assistance ($5 billion).
* Both candidates proposed dozens of "cost unknown" proposals that could boost totals higher.

NTUF's January 29 report elicited a great deal of attention from the media, the public, and the candidates themselves. At that time NTUF estimated that the Presidential hopefuls' budget platforms ranged from $150.1 billion in savings (Ron Paul) to $287.0 billion in new spending (Obama). The top-tier GOP candidates remaining in the race (John McCain and Mike Huckabee) called for spending hikes of $6.9 billion and $54.2 billion, respectively. NTUF will update their reports next.

NTUF is the nonpartisan research arm of the National Taxpayers Union, a citizen group founded in 1969. Note: For more on the candidate cost analysis project, visit www.ntu.org.

patteeu
03-12-2008, 04:10 PM
Issue 2: Obama's plan to give $4,000 to college students in return for 100 hours of community service.

Obama wants to create a new, costly entitlement for kids who want to go to college. The cost of college is rising at a much faster rate than inflation. That $4,000 would go a long way toward making college more affordable, right? Yes and no.

The first generation of kids who get this $4,000 windfall will be benefited greatly by this program. But what's going to happen to college tuition when this easy money starts flowing into the system? Tuition is going to rise to absorb it, that's what's going to happen. We are going to hook a whole new group of people on a government entitlement and pretty soon tuition is going to be just as "out of reach" (read: require just as much sacrifice) as it does today except that when that time comes, it will be impossible to wean ourselves off of the Obama grant program and it will become another fixture in our entitlement soaked lives. Pressure will mount to increase the amount of the grant to keep up with tuition costs, but there will be an equal pressure to raise taxes or implement more stringent means testing to keep the program solvent. Uh uh. No thanks. We don't need to create yet another intitiative-sapping, dependency-creating, government-strings-attached entitlement program. Just say no to the suffocating nanny state.

clemensol
03-12-2008, 04:21 PM
Great question, foxman. I don't have time right now to go into all the policy based arguments against Obama, but I'll give you a couple for now and I'll come back later with a few more.

Let's start with the big picture. Spending. Spending A LOT. The National Taxpayer's Union (http://www.ntu.org/main/press.php?PressID=995&org_name=NTUF) has analyzed the campaign promises of all the major presidential candidates and it's not too surprising to find out that Obama comes out on top of the Big Spenders list. In terms of new spending proposed, here are the results of the study:

Obama $307.3 billion
Hillary $226.1 billion
McCain $6.9 billion

All this whining about how Bush is spending so much money on the war and being fiscally irresponsible turns out to be nothing but hot air. Both democrat candidates would divert any savings they generated by irresponsibly withdrawing from Iraq into new spending programs and then they'd have to come up with $ billions more (in Obama's case over $100 billion) to fund all their pie in the sky schemes.

First of all, it should be noted that the National Taxpayer's Union is about as conservative and republican as it gets so it comes as no surprise that this is what they've come up with. Not saying it's not accurate, and I'm sure that Obama/Clinton's new spending projects are much larger than McCain's, but you have to consider the source.

Second, this is only an estimate on new spending. If you took new spending, and subtracted the saved costs from withdrawing troops from Iraq, I'm sure you'd come up with very different numbers.

noa
03-12-2008, 04:27 PM
Issue 2: Obama's plan to give $4,000 to college students in return for 100 hours of community service.

I suspect this proposal is backed by Big Pizza.

beer bacon
03-12-2008, 04:46 PM
or that we will refuse to fight in a WWIII or WWIV. so you'll be safe at home.

You should educate yourself and take a gander at the speech Obama made today.

beer bacon
03-12-2008, 04:47 PM
Tell him Barry Hussein Obama, who hates America so much he won't wear a flag pin or put his hand over his heart, is financing his terrorist sleeper cell by selling coke. And he's for reparations.

Also: BLACK MAN.

patteeu
03-12-2008, 05:50 PM
First of all, it should be noted that the National Taxpayer's Union is about as conservative and republican as it gets so it comes as no surprise that this is what they've come up with. Not saying it's not accurate, and I'm sure that Obama/Clinton's new spending projects are much larger than McCain's, but you have to consider the source.

Second, this is only an estimate on new spending. If you took new spending, and subtracted the saved costs from withdrawing troops from Iraq, I'm sure you'd come up with very different numbers.

This is a thread about and for conservative Republicans so I don't think it's going to be too damning to label the NTU as a conservative Republican organization, lol.

And even if (in a liberal dream world) Obama were able to completely withdraw from Iraq immediately upon taking office, his proposed new spending is still more than $100 billion greater than the maximum savings he could hope to recover (and that's ignoring the fact that we still have to pay for our troops whether they are fighting in Iraq or stationed at Ft. Hood or Camp Pendelton). And unlike Bush's spending on the war in Iraq, Barack Obama's spending is perpetual, it's not going to end when the war winds down.

Barack Obama is preparing to break the bank and he's going to tax the hell out of the American people to finance the huge government he envisions. This isn't some kind of Karl Rove trick. This is based on the campaign promises of Barack Obama, himself.

patteeu
03-12-2008, 05:50 PM
I suspect this proposal is backed by Big Pizza.

LMAO

SBK
03-12-2008, 05:55 PM
Typically a conservative doesn't like socialism. Maybe I'm living in the past here, but a conservative would usually look for a candidate that's position on the issues is pretty much the exact opposite of Obama.

Oh, and he's a black guy so if you don't vote for him you're racist.

SNR
03-12-2008, 06:01 PM
Patteau hit the nail on the head. How many programs are we going to throw money at before we realize that until we get our economy straightened out, there's no hope of solving problems simply by throwing money at them

patteeu
03-12-2008, 06:10 PM
Speaking of the economy...

Issue 3: Obama's Patriot Act

Obama says a lot of unspecific things in his campaign speeches. One of the things he's said that at least gives the appearance of substance is ""We will end the tax breaks for companies who ship our jobs overseas, and we will give those breaks to companies who create good jobs with decent wages right here in America." On the surface, some people might find this to be an attractive proposal, but what does it mean?

In August of last year, Barack Obama along with a couple of his Senate democrat colleagues, introduced Patriot Employer Act. Here is how the Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120407121574294919.html?mod=opinion_main_review_and_outlooks) describes this piece of legislation:

Mr. Obama's proposal would designate certain companies as "patriot employers" and favor them over other, presumably not so patriotic, businesses.

The legislation takes four pages to define "patriotic" companies as those that: "pay at least 60 percent of each employee's health care premiums"; have a position of "neutrality in employee [union] organizing drives"; "maintain or increase the number of full-time workers in the United States relative to the number of full-time workers outside of the United States"; pay a salary to each employee "not less than an amount equal to the federal poverty level"; and provide a pension plan.

In other words, a patriotic employer is one which fulfills the fondest Big Labor agenda, regardless of the competitive implications. The proposal ignores the marketplace reality that businesses hire a work force they can afford to pay and still make money. Coercing companies into raising wages and benefits above market rates may only lead to fewer workers getting hired in the first place.

Companies who conform earn a tax break. The tax break is funded by forcing multinational corporations based in the US to pay US corporate income taxes on their overseas operations. These taxes tend to be significantly higher than the taxes these operations currently face so this measure will have the effect of making US based companies less competitive in the global marketplace. The Wall Street Journal summarizes this window into the soul of Obama's economic policy like this:

Apparently Mr. Obama believes that by making U.S. companies less profitable and less competitive world-wide, they will somehow be able to create more jobs in America.

patteeu
03-12-2008, 06:18 PM
More on the economy...

Issue 4: Taxes.

Obama wants to raise them. But he doesn't want to raise them on everyone. He just wants to raise them anywhere that higher taxes might have a negative impact on our economy.

In my last post, I pointed out his plan to tax company's overseas operations in order to bribe companies at home to increase their overhead costs.

He also wants to raise taxes on capital gains and dividends as well as raising rates on the wealthy, i.e. people who are more likely to invest their money in the US economy than use it for consumption. By lowering the after tax return on investment, Obama policies will discourage both domestic and foreign investment in the US.

patteeu
03-12-2008, 06:27 PM
Issue 5: The Iraq War

Obama is unreliable on the Iraq war. Surprisingly, he's unreliable to those of us who believe in finishing the job and he's also unreliable to those who want to pull out. Obama refuses to be clear about his position on the Iraq war. He says he's been againt it from the beginning, but he's voted to fund it at every critical point along the path. He says he wants to withdraw when he becomes President, but he hedges by saying that he reserves the right to continue to operate against al Qaeda. What does all this mean? Who knows? But with a strong anti-war constituency to placate, anyone who cares about continuing to push toward a positive outcome in Iraq should be less than inspired by the prospects of an Obama presidency.

Nominally, Obama has promised to withdraw within 16 months of his inauguration, but his recently departed foreign policy advisor Samantha Power described the plan (http://unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Ousted+Obama+adviser+casts+doubt+on+Iraq+pullout+plan&articleId=1be0152e-83fc-4ebe-8bd2-f99b5f7e0355) as a best case scenario and indicated, once again, that everything could change once he gets into office.

Power's comments about Iraq came in an interview with the BBC. She said Obama's position is that withdrawing all U.S. troops within 16 months is a "best-case scenario" that he will revisit if he becomes president.

"He will, of course, not rely on some plan that he's crafted as a presidential candidate or a U.S. senator," she said. "He will rely upon a plan -- an operational plan -- that he pulls together in consultation with people who are on the ground to whom he doesn't have daily access now, as a result of not being the president."

Pitt Gorilla
03-13-2008, 12:45 AM
Simply explain that Obama is black. That will likely scare the crap out of a conservative Rep.

ClevelandBronco
03-13-2008, 01:17 AM
Issue 2: Obama's plan to give $4,000 to college students in return for 100 hours of community service.

Obama wants to create a new, costly entitlement for kids who want to go to college. The cost of college is rising at a much faster rate than inflation. That $4,000 would go a long way toward making college more affordable, right? Yes and no.

The first generation of kids who get this $4,000 windfall will be benefited greatly by this program. But what's going to happen to college tuition when this easy money starts flowing into the system? Tuition is going to rise to absorb it, that's what's going to happen. We are going to hook a whole new group of people on a government entitlement and pretty soon tuition is going to be just as "out of reach" (read: require just as much sacrifice) as it does today except that when that time comes, it will be impossible to wean ourselves off of the Obama grant program and it will become another fixture in our entitlement soaked lives. Pressure will mount to increase the amount of the grant to keep up with tuition costs, but there will be an equal pressure to raise taxes or implement more stringent means testing to keep the program solvent. Uh uh. No thanks. We don't need to create yet another intitiative-sapping, dependency-creating, government-strings-attached entitlement program. Just say no to the suffocating nanny state.

Frankly, this is one of the (minor) reasons that make me wary of voucher programs. I anticipate a major manipulation of private school tuitions if public funds become available to them.

Let's get real: Some private schools don't want some kids at any price, let alone their current price. Private schools would proliferate under a universal voucher program, but I doubt that it would be a long-term benefit to us. The best schools would just be that much more expensive, and we'd be left with a new level of crappy private schools competing with crappy public schools for the bottom feeder dollars.

Just to flesh out my argument, I guess that I should say that the major reason I am leery of vouchers is because I doubt that government will allocate funds on a widespread basis to private schools without demanding oversight and standards in curricula, as well as veto power over schools that refuse to comply.

I also figure that those schools who would refuse to take vouchers (the schools that refuse oversight for the sake of public dollars) would often be the best schools, even though they'd have to be more expensive to compete for teachers, administration and facilities.

BTW: I'm very uncomfortable with my opinion on this matter and I'd like to be talked out of it.

Logical
03-13-2008, 01:21 AM
Patteau hit the nail on the head. How many programs are we going to throw money at before we realize that until we get our economy straightened out, there's no hope of solving problems simply by throwing money at them

Sorry but you don't really believe that McCain has any different plans and he will be funding the war at somewhere between 200 and 300 billion per year. This is the weakest argument given all three candidates and a bucket of spit have similar differences.

Logical
03-13-2008, 01:24 AM
Simply explain that Obama is black. That will likely scare the crap out of a conservative Rep.
:LOL:LMAOROFL

Logical
03-13-2008, 01:32 AM
Has anyone mentioned his middle name is Hussein?

Did you know he once attended a Madrasa?

Rumor has it he is a Muslim.

According to DEnise he is pretending to be black when he is (gasp) Arab.

Oh and all these policies people tell you that he has proposed, they are all fake, he only offers a message of change and hope and never offers anything concrete.

If that is not enough let me know I am sure I can properly smear him some more.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-13-2008, 02:03 AM
So you consider yourself a conservative Republican, but you don't really know why.

That's awesome.

Baby Lee
03-13-2008, 06:21 AM
Simply explain that Obama is black. That will likely scare the crap out of a conservative Rep.
Leave it to Pitt Gorilla to allude to conservative racism at the height of a Democrat race-baiting trainwreck.

The Grand Asymmetrical Tut-Tutter strikes again.

ChiefaRoo
03-13-2008, 06:41 AM
Umm, he sounds great but he's just a liberal socialist. Simple as that.

foxman
03-13-2008, 08:38 AM
So you consider yourself a conservative Republican, but you don't really know why.

That's awesome.


I am pretty conservative generally speaking and tend to agree with the Republican ideas or views more or less. I have not researched Obama enough to be able to separate fact from fiction and as you know the amount of BS on the net is incredible. I tend to think all politicians are liars and cheats which is a pretty cynical view but the fact is I just don't have time to separate the facts and BS.

BucEyedPea
03-13-2008, 08:47 AM
I am pretty conservative generally speaking and tend to agree with the Republican ideas or views more or less. I have not researched Obama enough to be able to separate fact from fiction and as you know the amount of BS on the net is incredible. I tend to think all politicians are liars and cheats which is a pretty cynical view but the fact is I just don't have time to separate the facts and BS.

foxman, I consider myself conservative too but there aren't any running.
So what issue(s) are most important to you is the best it's gonna get.
Do you want more war? Say one with Iran next, then Syria even Lebanon?
Then go with McCain
If you want the madness to stop then Obama is the only choice even if he's a socialist. Hillary is a socialist too. But McCain is just c-r-a-a-a-z-z-z-z-y!

Cochise
03-13-2008, 08:57 AM
This thread has got to be some kind of a false flag operation.

Braincase
03-13-2008, 09:10 AM
Registered Republican, fiscally conservative, socially liberal on most topics. I'd classify myself as a moderate, but my position moves based on the topic, i.e. I oppose abortion and stem cell research using fetal tissue harvested from aborted fetuses, but I have no problem with gay marriage. I currently think our fiscal poicy is one of the most irresponsible in history, and I want a complete audit of the government contracts related to the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan through Halliburton and KBR.

chiefforlife
03-13-2008, 09:40 AM
One of the finer arguments I have "herd" ..."He is all hat and no cattle".

That should sway 'em.

This may not work if you choose to ever become ...informed.:shake:

Iowanian
03-13-2008, 09:53 AM
obamafans

http://www.damninteresting.com/wp-content/itty_faint.jpg




Obama is awesome at spending 15 minutes saying nothing.

foxman
03-13-2008, 09:58 AM
The war is a tough issue for everyone, but I might be crazy too.

I understand and empathize with the concern that we are positioning ourselves to be world police and the thought that we need to let their culture be their's and stop trying to push our agenda on them.

But... I have trust issues with that region and feel we can't just pull out and expect everything to be ok. Whether we end up in a conflict with the Syrians or Iranians I can't say, but I don't think we need to just leave Iraq.

I would vote Hillary before I would Obama, but I will vote McCain before I will vote either of them. I don't like any of the candidates but I wont not vote.

If nothing else when i vote I can still complain about the president unlike those who don't vote and then complain.

Iowanian
03-13-2008, 10:02 AM
Obamas defense strategy translated to prison would be

take lots of cigarettes to give away to the mean guys. The ones who rough him up....give them options....mouth or ass and present it in their cell at their leisure, in hopes they'll stop being nasty to him.



Of all remaining candidates, Obama would be my choice if I were selecting someone to sell me a set of knives and with a free complimentary potato slicer on paid advertising for saturday morning TV. If they get him to pimp the Banjo Minnow...I might even buy the additional bonus package with the 10 helicopter tails.

alanm
03-13-2008, 10:03 AM
I have been asked to try to dissuade someone planning on voting Obama and while I have some perceptions I am curious what are the primary factual issues with Obama and can you provide a link to support not voting for him?
Hope and Change.:)

Pitt Gorilla
03-13-2008, 10:40 AM
Leave it to Pitt Gorilla to allude to conservative racism at the height of a Democrat race-baiting trainwreck.

The Grand Asymmetrical Tut-Tutter strikes again.Dude, it was a joke. Lighten up a bit.

Pitt Gorilla
03-13-2008, 10:45 AM
Registered Republican, fiscally conservative, socially liberal on most topics. I'd classify myself as a moderate, but my position moves based on the topic, i.e. I oppose abortion and stem cell research using fetal tissue harvested from aborted fetuses, but I have no problem with gay marriage. I currently think our fiscal poicy is one of the most irresponsible in history, and I want a complete audit of the government contracts related to the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan through Halliburton and KBR.I agree with you on every point, except that I support stem cell research at all levels. Obama's potential spending scares me a great deal, but so does the spending of Hillary and McCain. I don't know if that should be considered moderate, because I'm actually "liberal" or "conservative" depending on the issue. For example, my (fiscal) conservatism won out this election as I voted for Paul.

SNR
03-13-2008, 10:47 AM
Sorry but you don't really believe that McCain has any different plans and he will be funding the war at somewhere between 200 and 300 billion per year. This is the weakest argument given all three candidates and a bucket of spit have similar differences.I'm not voting McCain and in no way would I look foward to his presidency.

patteeu
03-13-2008, 11:45 AM
The war is a tough issue for everyone, but I might be crazy too.

I understand and empathize with the concern that we are positioning ourselves to be world police and the thought that we need to let their culture be their's and stop trying to push our agenda on them.

But... I have trust issues with that region and feel we can't just pull out and expect everything to be ok. Whether we end up in a conflict with the Syrians or Iranians I can't say, but I don't think we need to just leave Iraq.

I would vote Hillary before I would Obama, but I will vote McCain before I will vote either of them. I don't like any of the candidates but I wont not vote.

If nothing else when i vote I can still complain about the president unlike those who don't vote and then complain.

Just out of curiosity, who is a candidate you would have enthusiastically supported (either one of the candidates who ran this year or someone else from the past or present that you think would make a good president)?

Calcountry
03-13-2008, 01:13 PM
You'll be safer with the peacemakers.Yes Neville, you are so right about that.

Calcountry
03-13-2008, 01:15 PM
I agree with you on every point, except that I support stem cell research at all levels. Obama's potential spending scares me a great deal, but so does the spending of Hillary and McCain. I don't know if that should be considered moderate, because I'm actually "liberal" or "conservative" depending on the issue. For example, my (fiscal) conservatism won out this election as I voted for Paul.Have you bought any gold yet?

Iowanian
03-13-2008, 02:17 PM
Just out of curiosity, who is a candidate you would have enthusiastically supported (either one of the candidates who ran this year or someone else from the past or present that you think would make a good president)?

I'm not a big fan of any remaining candidates. I wasn't a big fan of any of the pool to choose from. After doing my homework, the one who came the closest to my views was Huckabee.

I think Colon Powell would make a fine president.

BucEyedPea
03-13-2008, 02:50 PM
Yes Neville, you are so right about that.
Where did it get Napoleon, Hitler, WWI Germany, Alexander the Great and many others? Seems they came crashing down taking their countries with them. Why should we act like them especially when it comes to wars of choice or remaking the world over a natural desire of self-defense?

Your religious guru says what I said. Starting wars is not a way to create more security. Making peace is not being a pacifist. It's an action word. The world will always be full of conflict and strife that we'll have to co-exist with. It doesn't mean we don't do things to reduce that as opposed to expanding it. This is what McCain and the NeoCons are about.

"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God."

foxman
03-13-2008, 03:46 PM
I think Colon Powell would make a fine president.


I think I could get with that, or at least I like the idea of it better than the choices we have.

Just out of curiosity, who is a candidate you would have enthusiastically supported (either one of the candidates who ran this year or someone else from the past or present that you think would make a good president)?

That is a great question. I felt good about Bush. I liked Reagan. I don't think JFK would have pulled any punches if presented with a 9/11 type of situation and I like that although I would have had morality issues with JFK.

In todays realm Giuliani or Powell are the two that come to mind.

|Zach|
03-13-2008, 03:48 PM
I think I could get with that, or at least I like the idea of it better than the choices we have.



And why is that?

Pitt Gorilla
03-13-2008, 04:06 PM
Have you bought any gold yet?
I wanna know where da gol at.

patteeu
03-13-2008, 05:58 PM
Where did it get Napoleon, Hitler, WWI Germany, Alexander the Great and many others? Seems they came crashing down taking their countries with them. Why should we act like them especially when it comes to wars of choice or remaking the world over a natural desire of self-defense?

Your religious guru says what I said. Starting wars is not a way to create more security. Making peace is not being a pacifist. It's an action word. The world will always be full of conflict and strife that we'll have to co-exist with. It doesn't mean we don't do things to reduce that as opposed to expanding it. This is what McCain and the NeoCons are about.

"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God."

Do you not think that there are plenty of examples of appeasers, pacifists, people who wanted to live and let live, and people who thought that talk and paper agreements were enough to ensure security whose actions or lack thereof ended badly?

I'm not going to get into a thread hijack over it, but it's worth noting that there are two sides to this particular history lesson.

BucEyedPea
03-13-2008, 05:59 PM
I wasn't talking about pacifism. That's just it.

penchief
03-13-2008, 06:57 PM
Yes Neville, you are so right about that.

Of course, it's blatently obvious that this country has done so well under the greedy warmakers.

penchief
03-13-2008, 07:00 PM
Do you not think that there are plenty of examples of appeasers, pacifists, people who wanted to live and let live, and people who thought that talk and paper agreements were enough to ensure security whose actions or lack thereof ended badly?

I'm not going to get into a thread hijack over it, but it's worth noting that there are two sides to this particular history lesson.

Being against unjustified war based on imperialistic motives is NOT the same thing as appeasing Hitler. Let's make that much clear, okay?

If anything, being against unjustified imperialistic war is the equavalent to being against Hitler, IMHO.

patteeu
03-14-2008, 09:10 AM
I wasn't talking about pacifism. That's just it.

I included pacifists in a laundry list of people who didn't fit into the category you described but yet who have repeatedly led to poor historical outcomes.

patteeu
03-14-2008, 09:13 AM
Being against unjustified war based on imperialistic motives is NOT the same thing as appeasing Hitler. Let's make that much clear, okay?

If anything, being against unjustified imperialistic war is the equavalent to being against Hitler, IMHO.

Why are you bringing Hitler into this discussion with me? BucEyedPea is the one who brought Hitler up, I didn't.

P.S. It's not my fault if your agenda is difficult to distinguish from the agenda of those who would appease al Qeada in order to get off their target list.

BucEyedPea
03-14-2008, 09:18 AM
I brought up former regime leaders who started an aggressive war(s) on a nation that was no threat and invaded. You know an act that violates the Nuremberg standard we helped set.

penchief
03-14-2008, 11:11 AM
Why are you bringing Hitler into this discussion with me? BucEyedPea is the one who brought Hitler up, I didn't.

P.S. It's not my fault if your agenda is difficult to distinguish from the agenda of those who would appease al Qeada in order to get off their target list.

Because your reference to appeasement is most commonly associated with Chamberlain and Hitler. And many of those who have advocated the invasion and continued occupation of Iraq have made similar references in the past (maybe, even you).

My point is that opposing the Iraq invasion and continuing to oppose the military occupation of Iraq is nothing akin to appeasement. In fact, opposing the invasion and occupation of Iraq would be akin to opposing Hitler's invasion of Poland. Both were unjustified acts of military aggression.

If this president had spent our resources going after bin Laden and trying to snuff out al Qaeda instead of fueling it, I would probably take a different position. But Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and there were no Saddam-al Qaeda connections.

Just because someone opposes unwarranted military invasions and illegal occupations doesn't mean that person doesn't recognize and wish to defeat the real threat. It doesn't make that person an appeaser simply because they believe that their government has gone batshit crazy.

DaKCMan AP
03-14-2008, 11:45 AM
That is a great question. I felt good about Bush. I liked Reagan. I don't think JFK would have pulled any punches if presented with a 9/11 type of situation and I like that although I would have had morality issues with JFK.

In todays realm Giuliani or Powell are the two that come to mind.

You'd have morality issues with JFK but not Giuliani?? :spock: