Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest Right-Wing Patriot

'08 Election

Recommended Posts

Guest Keith-Marshall,Mo
While you may not agree with what he said, his reasoning is exactly correct. Every candidate who runs for office has strong points and weak points. But this is a young person, who at this stage won't be voting on election day. He simply makes an arguement why he likes Mc Cain. We may not agree with him but thats what voting is all about. The right to choose the candidate of your choice. Please let's not criticize him. It's tough enough to get young people involved in the process and as the election cycle goes on he may change his mind. Our election is next tuesday and my wife and I are still not sure who we are voting for although we are leaning towards Obama.

I like Obama as well. I'm tired of the politcal royalty in this country and he would be a breath of fresh air.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
While you may not agree with what he said, his reasoning is exactly correct. Every candidate who runs for office has strong points and weak points. But this is a young person, who at this stage won't be voting on election day. He simply makes an arguement why he likes Mc Cain. We may not agree with him but thats what voting is all about. The right to choose the candidate of your choice. Please let's not criticize him. It's tough enough to get young people involved in the process and as the election cycle goes on he may change his mind. Our election is next tuesday and my wife and I are still not sure who we are voting for although we are leaning towards Obama.

Young Punk didn't write the piece. We don't know who wrote it.

I understand your point, but I think we set the bar too low if all we're doing is begging for participation. The essence of democracy isn't just participation, but also give-and-take, and that means constructive criticism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest 2smart4u
Punkie, me boy, why on earth do you want to vote for a Republican?

They're prepared to keep us in Iraq for 100 years. McCain specifically said so, so if he is elected, you can count on us being there throughout his term, which is not good for our country or the world, and it's not what the American people want. That can only divide this country, which is already at the breaking point politically. After how the Republicans have abused power these past many years (including McCain for going along with it in Congress), it makes no sense to support a Republican for president. Their position on the war alone disqualifies McCain, or any of the Republicans except Ron Paul (who isn't going to be nominated and isn't credible for dozens of other reasons) from any credible claim on the next presidential term.

Then you take the disastrous policies of the current Republican party, including:

- massive redistribution of wealth toward people who aren't earning the income, thereby

--- devastating the middle class, which is the backbone of any economy

--- handing huge amounts of wealth and power to people who haven't earned the wealth and can't be trusted with the power

--- creating a new class of inherited wealth, which is completely contrary to the spirit that builds a country and keeps it moving economically

- disregard for the environment

- disregard for civil liberties and the Constitution

- indifference to health care

- indifference to education and the fact that the USA keeps falling further and further behind the rest of the world in the sciences

- indifference to our natural environment

- indifference to the massive debt they've piled up so they could give our money to people who are richer than sin

- indifference to the fact that corporate executives make obscene salaries at our expense

- indifference to the sub-prime disaster, which is throwing our country into a recession and will cause millions of people to lose their homes if something that Republicans aren't willing to do isn't done about it

- apparent indifference to the real threats we face in the world, including terrorism, which is gaining strength while our military is stetched paper thin trying to make up for Mr. Bush's mess.

McCain knows the Bush tax cuts were wrong. He voted against them because he knew they were going to result in an enormous debt. Now he wants to make them permanent. Great. That's like saying "what the hell, I spent most of my life's savings on booze, I might as well spend the rest."

Not to mention the fact that McCain would be 72 years old when he took office. What makes you think a person that age should lead the country, when we have capable people in their prime who can do it?

Not to mention the fact that his time in a POW camp is a double-edged sword. Yes, he's a hero, but an experience like that wounds in a person in ways he never recovers from. You can see it when he speaks. Heroism isn't enough. We need someone who can take the country forward, and McCain is not that person.

You're young, punkie. What's wrong with you?

This post is a classic example of drinking too much Kool-Aid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Truth Squad
This post is a classic example of drinking too much Kool-Aid.

In other words, you didn't understand it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest lol
This post is a classic example of drinking too much Kool-Aid.

lol, no answer, as usual. Are you ever going to join reality, dipstick?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest 2smart4u
In other words, you didn't understand it.

How does an intelligent person respond to Gobblygook ?? An intelligent person doesn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Punkie, me boy, why on earth do you want to vote for a Republican?

They're prepared to keep us in Iraq for 100 years. McCain specifically said so, so if he is elected, you can count on us being there throughout his term, which is not good for our country or the world, and it's not what the American people want. That can only divide this country, which is already at the breaking point politically. After how the Republicans have abused power these past many years (including McCain for going along with it in Congress), it makes no sense to support a Republican for president. Their position on the war alone disqualifies McCain, or any of the Republicans except Ron Paul (who isn't going to be nominated and isn't credible for dozens of other reasons) from any credible claim on the next presidential term.

Then you take the disastrous policies of the current Republican party, including:

- massive redistribution of wealth toward people who aren't earning the income, thereby

--- devastating the middle class, which is the backbone of any economy

--- handing huge amounts of wealth and power to people who haven't earned the wealth and can't be trusted with the power

--- creating a new class of inherited wealth, which is completely contrary to the spirit that builds a country and keeps it moving economically

- disregard for the environment

- disregard for civil liberties and the Constitution

- indifference to health care

- indifference to education and the fact that the USA keeps falling further and further behind the rest of the world in the sciences

- indifference to our natural environment

- indifference to the massive debt they've piled up so they could give our money to people who are richer than sin

- indifference to the fact that corporate executives make obscene salaries at our expense

- indifference to the sub-prime disaster, which is throwing our country into a recession and will cause millions of people to lose their homes if something that Republicans aren't willing to do isn't done about it

- apparent indifference to the real threats we face in the world, including terrorism, which is gaining strength while our military is stetched paper thin trying to make up for Mr. Bush's mess.

McCain knows the Bush tax cuts were wrong. He voted against them because he knew they were going to result in an enormous debt. Now he wants to make them permanent. Great. That's like saying "what the hell, I spent most of my life's savings on booze, I might as well spend the rest."

Not to mention the fact that McCain would be 72 years old when he took office. What makes you think a person that age should lead the country, when we have capable people in their prime who can do it?

Not to mention the fact that his time in a POW camp is a double-edged sword. Yes, he's a hero, but an experience like that wounds in a person in ways he never recovers from. You can see it when he speaks. Heroism isn't enough. We need someone who can take the country forward, and McCain is not that person.

You're young, punkie. What's wrong with you?

I would like to vote republican because while I do not agree with all their sentiments, I do agree with many conservative policies. For example I agree with the war in Iraq to some extent. I agree that Iraq was a potential threat and a definite threat to allies with in the area. In a book I'm reading Honor: A History, it puts a whole new outlook on the war in Iraq making it seem as if we were defending our honor, but I will elaborate more once I have finished the book. But I do not agree with the military occupation of Iraq. I have no doubt that our military can make any country fall to its knees, but they are not for the purposes of building countries. That, as far as I'm concerned, is a job for diplomats. I like John McCain because he realizes that we need to finish the job. But I do not agree with outsourcing and illegal immigration, though I can understand and sympathise with the companies and people who do this. I understand the concept of making as much money as possible with the least amount of cost. I think that we need to give jobs back to Americans until the economy has stablized again. As far as his age, it has no effect on me, he seems to be capable and healthy. I would rather a president who is old, but one who is experienced and knowledgable about how to run a nation. So theres nothing wrong with me, I'm just conservative, which in my school isn't a good thing.

While you may not agree with what he said, his reasoning is exactly correct. Every candidate who runs for office has strong points and weak points. But this is a young person, who at this stage won't be voting on election day. He simply makes an arguement why he likes Mc Cain. We may not agree with him but thats what voting is all about. The right to choose the candidate of your choice. Please let's not criticize him. It's tough enough to get young people involved in the process and as the election cycle goes on he may change his mind. Our election is next tuesday and my wife and I are still not sure who we are voting for although we are leaning towards Obama.

Thank you, it's very hard for people to take me seriously due to my age. People don't seem to think that my experience in doing model congress and model united nations or the week I spent in Washington D.C. learning about national security permits me to have an informed opinion on politics and world affairs. I really do not know what Obama's policies are, so the only thing I can speak on is his inexperience. Therefore I sincerly thank you for not criticizing my inexperience as some have.

Young Punk didn't write the piece. We don't know who wrote it.

I understand your point, but I think we set the bar too low if all we're doing is begging for participation. The essence of democracy isn't just participation, but also give-and-take, and that means constructive criticism.

As I said in my post, I quoted the website arthurshall.com. The website is about conservative politics and metal. I used this site as the basis of my post because I am not as articulate as most, due to my age and lack of experience

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
How does an intelligent person respond to Gobblygook ??

There wouldn't be a worse person to ask that question than you, idiot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Truth Squad
How does an intelligent person respond to Gobblygook ?? An intelligent person doesn't.

Dear Dimwit,

You really don't see how funny that is, do you? If you're referring to post 21 as Gobblygook (I think you mean gobbledygook), you responded to it in post 29.

State the logical conclusion that follows from your argument. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
I would like to vote republican because while I do not agree with all their sentiments, I do agree with many conservative policies. For example I agree with the war in Iraq to some extent. I agree that Iraq was a potential threat and a definite threat to allies with in the area. In a book I'm reading Honor: A History, it puts a whole new outlook on the war in Iraq making it seem as if we were defending our honor, but I will elaborate more once I have finished the book. But I do not agree with the military occupation of Iraq. I have no doubt that our military can make any country fall to its knees, but they are not for the purposes of building countries. That, as far as I'm concerned, is a job for diplomats. I like John McCain because he realizes that we need to finish the job. But I do not agree with outsourcing and illegal immigration, though I can understand and sympathise with the companies and people who do this. I understand the concept of making as much money as possible with the least amount of cost. I think that we need to give jobs back to Americans until the economy has stablized again. As far as his age, it has no effect on me, he seems to be capable and healthy. I would rather a president who is old, but one who is experienced and knowledgable about how to run a nation. So theres nothing wrong with me, I'm just conservative, which in my school isn't a good thing.

Thank you, it's very hard for people to take me seriously due to my age. People don't seem to think that my experience in doing model congress and model united nations or the week I spent in Washington D.C. learning about national security permits me to have an informed opinion on politics and world affairs. I really do not know what Obama's policies are, so the only thing I can speak on is his inexperience. Therefore I sincerly thank you for not criticizing my inexperience as some have.

As I said in my post, I quoted the website arthurshall.com. The website is about conservative politics and metal. I used this site as the basis of my post because I am not as articulate as most, due to my age and lack of experience.

Punkie, you can be taken seriously at your age, but not if you're going to get your "information" (if you call it that) from a website "about conservative politics and metal." That's like taking a class on personal responsibility from Britney Spears.

And you can't make an intelligent decision about the war in Iraq by reading a general history on "honor." Instead, read a book that is actually about the war, like Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq by Thomas E. Ricks.

There's plenty of good information about the Iraqi war. It's a freaking disaster, the worst foreign policy decision in our history, right along with Viet Nam. Study. Read. Then draw your conclusions. Don't start out identifying yourself as a conservative or a liberal either, limit yourself to reading only what supports your chosen viewpoint and think you've done anything worthwhile. No one is ever going to take you seriously that way, not even when you're 70.

Honestly, from what you're writing, the "information" you're getting isn't conservative. It's radical right wing. There's nothing conservative about it.

And if you don't know anything about Barack Obama, then don't draw a conclusion. Keep your mind open --- no --- open your mind, open a newspaper (a good one like the New York Times or the Washington Post or the Los Angeles Times, not a useless rag like USA Today or the New York Post), study the candidates, and then make a decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Punkie, you can be taken seriously at your age, but not if you're going to get your "information" (if you call it that) from a website "about conservative politics and metal." That's like taking a class on personal responsibility from Britney Spears.

And you can't make an intelligent decision about the war in Iraq by reading a general history on "honor." Instead, read a book that is actually about the war, like Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq by Thomas E. Ricks.

There's plenty of good information about the Iraqi war. It's a freaking disaster, the worst foreign policy decision in our history, right along with Viet Nam. Study. Read. Then draw your conclusions. Don't start out identifying yourself as a conservative or a liberal either, limit yourself to reading only what supports your chosen viewpoint and think you've done anything worthwhile. No one is ever going to take you seriously that way, not even when you're 70.

Honestly, from what you're writing, the "information" you're getting isn't conservative. It's radical right wing. There's nothing conservative about it.

And if you don't know anything about Barack Obama, then don't draw a conclusion. Keep your mind open --- no --- open your mind, open a newspaper (a good one like the New York Times or the Washington Post or the Los Angeles Times, not a useless rag like USA Today or the New York Post), study the candidates, and then make a decision.

While I used that as quotes, that is because when asked my opinion people usually want it from another source. That being said, I do believe in a lot of conservative views, at least when it comes to foreign policy. I do not really know where I stand domestically. I agree that the war was mishandled, but I view it as necessary. Please excuse the fact that I did not respond to all your points I have to go to my next class, but I will respond further within the night.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Keith
While I used that as quotes, that is because when asked my opinion people usually want it from another source. That being said, I do believe in a lot of conservative views, at least when it comes to foreign policy. I do not really know where I stand domestically. I agree that the war was mishandled, but I view it as necessary. Please excuse the fact that I did not respond to all your points I have to go to my next class, but I will respond further within the night.

Which war? Afghanistan or Iraq?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Twizzler
While I used that as quotes, that is because when asked my opinion people usually want it from another source. That being said, I do believe in a lot of conservative views, at least when it comes to foreign policy. I do not really know where I stand domestically. I agree that the war was mishandled, but I view it as necessary. Please excuse the fact that I did not respond to all your points I have to go to my next class, but I will respond further within the night.

I don't think anyone is asking you to answer every point, or to justify yourself. No one has the right to demand that of you. You get to choose your politics, your religion, etc.

The point seems to be that if you want to "get it right," you have to read, study, think and re-think. A general history of honor, for example, is useful, but so are thousands of other things. If you want to make an informed decision about whether the Iraqi war was justified, then you need to read specifically about the war, and not just from sources that promote a certain political view. You say, for example, that the war was justified, but on what basis? We weren't attacked, Iraq had virtually nothing to do with terrorism, the justification for the war (WMDs) was based on cooked intelligence, and it should have been obvious from the beginning that once in we had no way out. And that's for starters. We also know that the neocons were furious with Bush I because he didn't invade Iraq during the first Gulf War - they were spoiling for a war, and that's not what America is supposed to be about. We can't claim to value peace if we're going to act like that, and we can't claim to respect other nations if we're going to use our power to dictate to the world. So how was it justified? The only justification I see is that we were big enough and powerful enough to do it, the people who gained control of our government wanted to do it, so they did it; and a frightened population went along. And as if that isn't bad enough, we diverted our entire military out of the countries where terrorist organizations are actually operating, thereby devastating our ability to confront the problem. In almost every way, the war has been a disaster. I don't see a justification.

Personally, I'd rather see you express your own views, informed by study and thought. People who want you to cite sources for your views probably are looking for reliable sources. They're not likely to be impressed by an ideologocally driven website on conservative politics and metal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think anyone is asking you to answer every point, or to justify yourself. No one has the right to demand that of you. You get to choose your politics, your religion, etc.

The point seems to be that if you want to "get it right," you have to read, study, think and re-think. A general history of honor, for example, is useful, but so are thousands of other things. If you want to make an informed decision about whether the Iraqi war was justified, then you need to read specifically about the war, and not just from sources that promote a certain political view. You say, for example, that the war was justified, but on what basis? We weren't attacked, Iraq had virtually nothing to do with terrorism, the justification for the war (WMDs) was based on cooked intelligence, and it should have been obvious from the beginning that once in we had no way out.

Sounds like somebody is getting his information from sources that promote a certain political view.

Iraq had plenty to do with terrorism.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Publ...04/631slkle.asp

http://www.juancole.com/2005/07/iraq-and-state-dept.html

http://www.husseinandterror.com/

And that's for starters. We also know that the neocons were furious with Bush I because he didn't invade Iraq during the first Gulf War - they were spoiling for a war, and that's not what America is supposed to be about.

Which non-partisan source tells us this? Obviously we invaded Iraq during the Gulf War. What we didn't do is proceed to the point of regime change.

There were very good reasons not to oust Hussein from power during the Gulf War, chief among them the fact that the Arab countries that assisted the coalition did so on the understanding that Hussein would not be toppled (they didn't want a Shia-dominated neighbor).

We can't claim to value peace if we're going to act like that, and we can't claim to respect other nations if we're going to use our power to dictate to the world. So how was it justified? The only justification I see is that we were big enough and powerful enough to do it, the people who gained control of our government wanted to do it, so they did it; and a frightened population went along.

:lol:

If you're going to pretend to fairness (let alone objectivity) you'll have to do much better than that. The justification was based on Iraq's failure to comply with the Gulf War ceasefire, particularly Hussein's repeated and enduring refusal to permit inspectors to confirm the lack of WMD. The timing was what it was because 1) Hussein was pressured into allowing the inspections in the first place (that's the opinion of noted right-winger Hans Blix). Once the troops are stationed, it costs almost as much to keep them poised for invasion as it does to proceed with the invasion. Hussein has the option of dragging out the inspection process until a withdrawal is forced by the expense. Not to mention his dicey deals with France, Russia, and Germany.

And as if that isn't bad enough, we diverted our entire military out of the countries where terrorist organizations are actually operating, thereby devastating our ability to confront the problem. In almost every way, the war has been a disaster. I don't see a justification.

:lol:

Personally, I'd rather see you express your own views, informed by study and thought. People who want you to cite sources for your views probably are looking for reliable sources. They're not likely to be impressed by an ideologocally driven website on conservative politics and metal.

http://www.jamesbowman.net/about.asp

I wonder how long it will take "Twizzler" to figure that one out?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
Sounds like somebody is getting his information from sources that promote a certain political view.

Iraq had plenty to do with terrorism.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Publ...04/631slkle.asp

http://www.juancole.com/2005/07/iraq-and-state-dept.html

http://www.husseinandterror.com/

Which non-partisan source tells us this? Obviously we invaded Iraq during the Gulf War. What we didn't do is proceed to the point of regime change.

There were very good reasons not to oust Hussein from power during the Gulf War, chief among them the fact that the Arab countries that assisted the coalition did so on the understanding that Hussein would not be toppled (they didn't want a Shia-dominated neighbor).

If you're going to pretend to fairness (let alone objectivity) you'll have to do much better than that. The justification was based on Iraq's failure to comply with the Gulf War ceasefire, particularly Hussein's repeated and enduring refusal to permit inspectors to confirm the lack of WMD. The timing was what it was because 1) Hussein was pressured into allowing the inspections in the first place (that's the opinion of noted right-winger Hans Blix). Once the troops are stationed, it costs almost as much to keep them poised for invasion as it does to proceed with the invasion. Hussein has the option of dragging out the inspection process until a withdrawal is forced by the expense. Not to mention his dicey deals with France, Russia, and Germany.

http://www.jamesbowman.net/about.asp

I wonder how long it will take "Twizzler" to figure that one out?

At best you've argued one point: that Iraq was sponsoring terrorism. Even if that was true, it still wouldn't justify the invasion in terms of our own national security. The costs outweigh the benefits, and it isn't a close question. If the case you're making would have justified the invasion, the Bush administration, which was looking for any excuse (a point you don't deny), would have made it. Instead, the Bushies found it necessary to cook false intelligence, and cherry pick questionable intelligence, about WMDs. The mere fact that they did that lays bare the poverty of their argument, and their criminality. They lied to the Congress and the American people to procure our assent to an unnecessary war. That isn't merely criminal, it's treasonous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Patriot
At best you've argued one point: that Iraq was sponsoring terrorism. Even if that was true, it still wouldn't justify the invasion in terms of our own national security. The costs outweigh the benefits, and it isn't a close question. If the case you're making would have justified the invasion, the Bush administration, which was looking for any excuse (a point you don't deny), would have made it. Instead, the Bushies found it necessary to cook false intelligence, and cherry pick questionable intelligence, about WMDs. The mere fact that they did that lays bare the poverty of their argument, and their criminality. They lied to the Congress and the American people to procure our assent to an unnecessary war. That isn't merely criminal, it's treasonous.

I find it amusing that "Guest" considers himself an authority on what would "justify an invasion in terms of our

own national security". Must be the mind-expanding effects of the Kool-Aid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
I find it amusing that "Guest" considers himself an authority on what would "justify an invasion in terms of our

own national security". Must be the mind-expanding effects of the Kool-Aid.

Or the mind duming effect of reading your drivel.................

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Truth Squad
I find it amusing that "Guest" considers himself an authority on what would "justify an invasion in terms of our own national security". Must be the mind-expanding effects of the Kool-Aid.

Idiot, your whole argument is based on making the same judgment, but drawing the opposite conclusion.

Besides, how do you know "Guest" isn't a former US Secretary of State?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
At best you've argued one point: that Iraq was sponsoring terrorism. Even if that was true, it still wouldn't justify the invasion in terms of our own national security.

By itself, no.

The costs outweigh the benefits, and it isn't a close question. If the case you're making would have justified the invasion, the Bush administration, which was looking for any excuse (a point you don't deny), would have made it.

Uh--what case am I making, according to you?

Instead, the Bushies found it necessary to cook false intelligence, and cherry pick questionable intelligence, about WMDs.

What is your evidence that the intelligence was cooked or cherry-picked? The intelligence services decide on the content of the NIE, not the White House.

The mere fact that they did that lays bare the poverty of their argument, and their criminality. They lied to the Congress and the American people to procure our assent to an unnecessary war. That isn't merely criminal, it's treasonous.

You appear to have based your argument on fantasy instead of fact. Are you able to remedy the deficiency?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest 2smart4u
Idiot, your whole argument is based on making the same judgment, but drawing the opposite conclusion.

Besides, how do you know "Guest" isn't a former US Secretary of State?

You just told everyone your I.Q. doesn't reach triple digits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
You just told everyone your I.Q. doesn't reach triple digits.

LOL !!! I think you're being generous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...