Righties or lefties..Where Do You Come Down?

User avatar
Parrotpaul
Posts: 33550
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 2:14 pm

Righties or lefties..Where Do You Come Down?

Post by Parrotpaul » Sun Oct 15, 2006 7:27 pm

OK, guys, many of you folks are ex OCCronicles posters where the topics and their discussions were pretty well focused for many years on the El Toro squabbles. Now we can finally take off the binders and have at it. =D>

So, where are the lines of political demarcation? I'm a liberal..not as left as when I wanted to burn things..just kidding, but probably a little left of center.

Bush sucks, and we ought to get the hell out of Iraq. The government is stinking up the place with its total do nothing posture on illegal immigration, and it has prostrated itself to the conservative religious right.

November should take care of a lot of the excess GOP's...especially after the crappola that has been coming down of late in Washington.

So, whaaddya think....rightie or leftie. Where do you come down on some of this stuff?

Almost forgot...Patriots rule and GO KINGSMEN!!!

Christobal
Posts: 44
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 8:28 pm

I think Democrats/liberals, whatever you wan't to call the

Post by Christobal » Sun Oct 15, 2006 9:16 pm

latest load of trash, need to pull their head out.

Bush suck because...... Please PLEASE come up with something coherent and of an adult level..... It's getting ridiculous to have to wade through all the 'he can't speak crap'. Yes, the man does not set the world on fire for public speaking. Would you rather have a public speaking award winner or a fake individual the likes of which is an adulterer and prone to lying to grand juries??

I agree he is turning a blind eye, or at least only paying lip service to illegal immigration. Give me ONE GRAIN of evidence the Democrats at any level are putting up a bigger red flag on that issue than the Republicans who rightfully disagree with Bush.

Explain what is wrong with Iraq. What would you have done differently. Mind you this is in hind sight at this point, though I don't think hind sight changes much, though more than half the pathetic (never underestimate the ignorant stupidity of your fellow American) country is chiming in with the mindless 'get out of Iraq' mantra.

Please, please offer up what the Democrats would have done differently. Offer some back boned substance, not pathetic Jr. High class president worthy BS.

Politics are mostly about theater and lying. Sometimes politicians step up to the plate and actually dig in to tough problems, fully knowing their brain dead, distracted, instant gratification laden constituents are going to fall off the bandwagon as soon as they get bored.

Hanna
Posts: 2766
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 8:11 pm

Post by Hanna » Sun Oct 15, 2006 10:12 pm

Done differently in Iraq?

As soon as the regime fell - with the capture of Saddam Hussein - our troops should have withdrawn and a multi-national forces should have taken place instead. Preferrably, troops from neighboring Arab countries that share language, culture, history and religion.

When talk about reconstruction was still feasible, the field should have been opened to all nations, including, yes, France and Germany. But, nooo, like petulant kids, it was "eithe with us or against us."

That we kept holding on showed that the real purpose was not any "regime change" but a simple grab of the oil, as well, as fat profits for Halliburton and, no doubt, Bechtel and even Fluor.

And then, of course, you have the hyporisy of the party of "moral value" and of small governement - as long as it involves others. Apparently there are many gay men among staffers in Congress. No big deal, right? No, not when the issue of gays brought out the "base" in the past several elections to give Bush and the Republicans their victory. I don't know how gay men can be Republicans. Why join a club that denigrates them, that use them as a wedge issue?

And, please, don't bring examples of Democrats with their affairs. The Democrats never carried a banner that it was anyone's business what is going on between consenting adults.

Last, no doubt you've heard the reports how we are in dire needs of translators to Arabic in Iraq. As it happens, many of them are gays who were forced to leave their posts under the "don't ask don't tell." YOu would think that at least from that POV, the Republicans should tolerate gay. But, again, as has been reported, people in adminsitrative posts in Iraq were selected based on their loyalty to Bush and Cheney and, of course, their hatred of gays, not based on any competency.

User avatar
Parrotpaul
Posts: 33550
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 2:14 pm

Re: I think Democrats/liberals, whatever you wan't to call t

Post by Parrotpaul » Mon Oct 16, 2006 4:34 am

Christobal wrote: latest load of trash, need to pull their head out.

Bush suck because...... Please PLEASE come up with something coherent and of an adult level..... It's getting ridiculous to have to wade through all the 'he can't speak crap'. Yes, the man does not set the world on fire for public speaking. Would you rather have a public speaking award winner or a fake individual the likes of which is an adulterer and prone to lying to grand juries??
It took me two words to explain my position...Bush sucks. Succinct, clear, concise, and nothing to wonder about...count your words....Yep, I'd rather have Clinton..no doubt about that.
Christobal wrote:I agree he is turning a blind eye, or at least only paying lip service to illegal immigration. Give me ONE GRAIN of evidence the Democrats at any level are putting up a bigger red flag on that issue than the Republicans who rightfully disagree with Bush.
I'm not here to comment on what the Dems would, could, or should dp...that's your job. I'm here to trash Bush and his bizarro reality.
Christobal wrote:Explain what is wrong with Iraq. What would you have done differently. Mind you this is in hind sight at this point, though I don't think hind sight changes much, though more than half the pathetic (never underestimate the ignorant stupidity of your fellow American) country is chiming in with the mindless 'get out of Iraq' mantra.
Sure...bogus reasons for waging war on a half-baked despot who represented no threat to the US; 3,000 dead Americans and tens of thousands wounded; hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis and hundreds of thousand wounded; dead and wounded allies, and, in addition we have opened the door for Iran and its insurgents to cause havoc, kill and behead more people, blow up Americans and their own, and create the kind of scenario the will lead to a civil war. We have spent hundreds of billions of dollars to do what?..oOverthrow a dictator who was well contained by our watchful military..primarily the AF, and turn a country..that, like its leadership or not, was a stable sovereign country with a working infrastructure into a hell hole of chaos, political instability, rubble, with no immediate hint of stability anywhere in site.
Christobal wrote:Please, please offer up what the Democrats would have done differently. Offer some back boned substance, not pathetic Jr. High class president worthy BS.
You ask for hypotheticals...I give you truths. Who in hell knows what they would have done...we DO know what Bush has and hasn't done. You tell me about the Democrats.
Christobal wrote:Politics are mostly about theater and lying. Sometimes politicians step up to the plate and actually dig in to tough problems, fully knowing their brain dead, distracted, instant gratification laden constituents are going to fall off the bandwagon as soon as they get bored
A rant, Christobal...nothing but a rant.

mvmike
Posts: 33
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2006 7:38 am

Sucking

Post by mvmike » Tue Oct 17, 2006 10:26 pm

C'mon, Christo. How can you argue with such a literate, concise political response like, "Bush Sucks!" :roll:

My response?
Everyone sucks who fails to understand why we are fighting in Iraq, and why we are treating arrested terrorist combatants outside of the Geneva Convention.
Nice and concise. :shock:

Who else sucks, you might ask?
Well, high on my list would be Jimmy Carter and the Dem congress who brought us double-digit inflation and interest rates, and the Carter advice to set our sights lower.
Anyone out there want to return to the last sustained period of time when the Dems ruled congress and the White House>>? :wink:

User avatar
Parrotpaul
Posts: 33550
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 2:14 pm

Re: Sucking

Post by Parrotpaul » Wed Oct 18, 2006 5:28 am

mvmike wrote:C'mon, Christo. How can you argue with such a literate, concise political response like, "Bush Sucks!" :roll:

My response?
Everyone sucks who fails to understand why we are fighting in Iraq, and why we are treating arrested terrorist combatants outside of the Geneva Convention.
Nice and concise. :shock:

Who else sucks, you might ask?
Well, high on my list would be Jimmy Carter and the Dem congress who brought us double-digit inflation and interest rates, and the Carter advice to set our sights lower.
Anyone out there want to return to the last sustained period of time when the Dems ruled congress and the White House>>? :wink:
And, just why are we fighting in Iraq? WMD's? Regime change? Help a grateful people? Bring Democracy to the Arab? Spend huge amounts of money on Bush's folly?

Why, mike...I'm all ears. Bush still sucks. Two more years...that's a very long time. Think he will have an Iraq exit plan by then?

mvmike
Posts: 33
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2006 7:38 am

Why are we fighting in Iraq?

Post by mvmike » Wed Oct 18, 2006 11:00 pm

Ok, without polemics, let's discuss Iraq.

To begin with, we had a mid-eastern government that was making war on its' neighbors, and on its' own people. After something like 17 failed UN resolutions (passed, but ignored), we went to war and defeated Saddam and his army.

Was it about WMD? Sure, in part at least. Every espionage agency in the western world agreed they had 'em, they were a serious threat to use 'em, and we needed to bring Saddam down. I won't bore you with the quotes of nearly every leading dem at the time, saying the above is true, but suffice it to say, I 'll provide them if you wish. They make for an interesting contrast to what these same people are saying today.

So oil and WMDs played an important role, to be sure. Iraq just happens to sit atop a huge pool of oil, so every western nation had to be concerned about a madman running Iraq. America especially had to be concerned, because of our unquenchable thirst for foriegn oil. But that's another story.

But primarily, the war was a reaction to 9-11, which finally made it clear that we had a serious threat on our hands. It became clear that there was a significant terrorist organization out there, supported and trained and allied with several mid-east and African nations. And the spooks from every western nation told us the Iraqis were building WMDs, and, in fact had used them on their own people and on the Iranians.

And it was basically a question about appeasement vs. military intervention. It was about a failed UN, the international body that SHOULD've handled the problem, but didn't. And it was about the leadership in nations like France, Germany, and Russia, who were determined to ignore the lessons of the 1st & 2nd WWs.

All that was what led up to the WAR in Iraq, which we won, post-haste.

Now we are facing a new war, one in which terrorists are fomenting death and destruction among the Iraqis -- Sunnis, Shia, and Kurds -- in order to create a civil war that they hope will allow them to take advantage of the post-war instability (which they are creating) in Iraq in order to install an Iranian Taliban-like puppet state. These are the same terrorists who have declared war on the US and on western civilization. Iraq is simply a target of opportunity for them.

These terrorists comprise a series of (mostly) Islamic radicals who have stated for the record on many occasions that they intend to wage war on the west. They have a better-than-15-year record of waging that war throughout the world, but mostly aimed at western interests. Our little "9-11 surprise" was simply the first big attack on the American homeland. There will be more to come, sooner rather than later if we walk away from Iraq.

So we have a choice to make: are we better off fighting them in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, or would we prefer to fight them here, in our cities? Either way we will either have to fight them, or surrender to the creation of what will become a world-wide "Taliban-like" radical Islamic government.

They won't "go away" if we withdraw from the middle east; they will simply shift the fighting, bombings, and attacks to western soil, including every democratic nation (perhaps beginning with Israel.) Take away their need to fight in Iraq, and they will soon be in America.

One of the lessons we should've learned from WW2 was that it's better to fight the tyrant early, when he's weak, rather than later, when they are stronger and bettter armed and trained. If we back away from fighting the Al Qaeda radicals NOW, we will have to fight them later, when they are better armed, and more numerous -- and on OUR soil.

Americans should take a good look at history -- including not only Nazi Germany, but, perhaps more to the point, the history of Islamic-Western confrontations in the early middle ages. Our western culture is anathema to radical Islamists, and this latest group is simply hi-jackking Islam once again, in order to achieve their own hope for world conquest.

And, finally, just for the record, there are a number of Bush policies I am very much against -- the border control issue being foremost. But on issues like taxes and the economy, the prosecution of the war on terror (including Iraq), and the handling of terrorist fighters captured on the battle flields, Bush is exactly RIGHT, IMO.

User avatar
SLK230
Posts: 9070
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 4:16 pm

Re: Righties or lefties..Where Do You Come Down?

Post by SLK230 » Thu Oct 19, 2006 4:49 am

Parrotpaul wrote:OK, guys, many of you folks are ex OCCronicles posters where the topics and their discussions were pretty well focused for many years on the El Toro squabbles. Now we can finally take off the binders and have at it. =D>

Paul do you really believe that you are just a "A Little Left of Center"?

You are so far to the left that you make Babs and Al Franken sound reasonable.

Bush IMO is what I would call a little left of center. Clinton would also be just a little left of center.

User avatar
Parrotpaul
Posts: 33550
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 2:14 pm

Re: Righties or lefties..Where Do You Come Down?

Post by Parrotpaul » Thu Oct 19, 2006 7:51 am

[quote="SLK230"][/quote]Please, Al....don't insult the left of center by placing Bush there.

Ok....I'm a little left of the left of center. \:D/

User avatar
John Q. Public
Site Admin
Posts: 19540
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:56 am
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: Righties or lefties..Where Do You Come Down?

Post by John Q. Public » Thu Oct 19, 2006 8:01 am

SLK230 wrote:Bush IMO is what I would call a little left of center. Clinton would also be just a little left of center.
I'd say you're right about Clinton, but on Bush I have to ask if you're refering to the same "center." If Bush is left of center that would put Clinton over with the bomb-toting revolutionaries.

Hanna
Posts: 2766
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 8:11 pm

The dilemma for Republicans

Post by Hanna » Thu Oct 19, 2006 8:09 am

This, of course, is the problem.

Once Republicans took control, they threw away their "small governement" banner. So, I suppose, on this point they call Bush "left of Center."

However, anyone who claims that god (which one, by the way) told him to run for office, to invade Iraq, to talk to Barney.. is way way on the right.

The old mantra was to "keep government off one's back" but once they took power they may be off one's back (except when there is someone else below it) but they certainly think that it is their business to get into consenting adults' bedrooms, private offices of OB-GYN's schoold children's heart, etc.

What I find interesting is that many of them are against birth control pills that are do not cause abortion, but have no problem with condoms, even though in the same bible that they like to quote, "spilling" one's sperm is a sin.

And, of course, the party that claim to have the "moral values"... need I say more?

User avatar
Parrotpaul
Posts: 33550
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 2:14 pm

Post by Parrotpaul » Thu Oct 19, 2006 8:26 am

Here's some chum for the fishing.

Poll Signals More Republican Woes
As Disapproval of Congress Grows


WALL STREET JOURNAL

By JACKIE CALMES and JOHN HARWOOD

WASHINGTON -- With just 19 days until the midterm elections, a new poll shows both President Bush and his party in worse shape among voters than Democrats were in the October before they lost control of Capitol Hill a dozen years ago.

Support for the Republican-led Congress has eroded to its lowest point since the party's watershed 1994 victory that brought it House and Senate majorities.

A new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll illustrates the political toll Republicans are paying for rising discontent over the Iraq war, as well as a spate of scandals including the disclosure that Republican House leaders knew of inappropriate emails to House pages from Florida Rep. Mark Foley, who resigned late last month. Voters' approval of Congress has fallen to 16% from 20% since early September, while their disapproval has risen to 75% from 65%.


That 16% rating statistically matches Congress's lowest point in the 17 years the Journal and NBC have polled, set in April 1992 when Democrats were in control and suffering from a scandal involving lawmakers' overdrafts from the House bank. The latest results set other records for the Journal/NBC surveys, all ominous for Republicans -- "a harbinger," in the words of Journal/NBC pollster Peter Hart, "of what's ahead for the incumbent party. It's as simple as that."

They include:

By 52% to 37%, voters say they want Democrats rather than Republicans to control Congress. That 15-point advantage is the widest ever registered by either party in the Journal/NBC surveys. Also, the result marks the first time voter preference for one party has exceeded 50%.

Half of independents say they want Democrats to take charge, while only a quarter of them back Republicans. "It's very unusual to see a majority of independents pick one political party," notes Bill McInturff, the Republican pollster who conducts the surveys with Mr. Hart, his Democratic counterpart.

Two-thirds of the electorate rates this year's Congress "below average" or "one of the worst" -- the poorest showing on that question since it was first asked in 1990.


Mr. Bush, who in the past typically drew high ratings personally even when his job-approval scores sagged, now is viewed negatively by a 52% majority -- essentially tying the worst rating of his presidency.

As for the Republican Party, 32% of voters rate it positively but 49% negatively -- the highest negative ever in the surveys for either party. On the other hand, the Democratic Party's reputation improved. After months in which it had a net negative rating only slightly better than Republicans', the party now is viewed positively by 37% and negatively by 35%


Along with other findings favorable to Democrats, Messrs. Hart and McInturff see a potential turning point for the party. For months, the Republican pollster has espoused "McInturff's Thesis: If there's a decisive election, it's because the other party becomes a credible alternative." Until now, he has argued, voters' doubts about Democrats were standing in the way of the party making significant gains. But yesterday, the Republican pollster agreed with Mr. Hart that voters now see Democrats as at least "a marginally acceptable alternative."

The Journal/NBC telephone survey of 1,006 registered voters, conducted Oct. 13-16, carries a margin of error of +/- 3.1 percentage points.

To be sure, the poll isn't a forecast of what ultimately happens on Nov. 7.

Polls amount to a snapshot in time, and unforeseen events could change the dynamic -- though the latest results do follow a trend of steady deterioration in support for Mr. Bush and the Republican-led Congress since just after the president's re-election in 2004.

Despite the steady drumbeat of ever-worsening polls, Republican leaders say they are counting on their superior get-out-the-vote operation and financial advantage to salvage enough seats to maintain control of the Senate, if not the House.

With the prospects of a Democratic takeover becoming more real to voters, Republicans have begun rallying their demoralized base and fence-sitters with visions of tax increases, liberal social policies and weakness on national security if the opposition controls Congress. House Majority Whip Roy Blunt, a Missouri Republican, yesterday sent an email to the media suggesting House Democrats would "plot to establish a Department of Peace, raise your taxes and minimize penalties for crack dealers."

Republicans also have sought to take credit, so far elusive, for recent good economic news, a significant drop in gasoline prices from summer's peaks and a rising stock market. The new poll did show a slight uptick in voters' views of Mr. Bush's handling of the economy: Approval rose to 44% from 39% in June. Still, a 52% majority says it disapproves of his economic stewardship.

One solace for Republican incumbents: National polls are decidedly imperfect predictors of local election outcomes, particularly given voters' historic penchant for saying they loathe Congress but like their own representative. While only 16% of voters approve of Congress, more than twice that many -- 39% -- said in answer to another poll question that their own representative deserves to be re-elected.

But 45% say "it is time to give a new person a chance." And by other measures in the poll, Republicans are at a greater disadvantage heading toward Election Day than Democrats were 12 years ago just before voters ended their 40-year reign in Congress.

In October 1994, with the public fed up with scandals and the failure of President Clinton and his party's lawmakers to deliver in key areas such as health care, voters said by a nine-point margin -- 46% to 37% -- that they wanted Republicans to take control. That compares with the 15-point margin today in favor of Democrats' taking the reins.

This midterm, like 1994, is shaping up as a referendum on an unpopular president who isn't on the ballot, leaving his party to bear the brunt of voters' wrath. Mr. Bush, however, is even less popular than Mr. Clinton was as Election Day approached. Back then, 45% disapproved of Mr. Clinton's job performance, compared with Mr. Bush's 57% disapproval rating.

The new poll also suggests the advantages that have helped Republicans sustain their majority in Congress -- gerrymandered House districts, a well-oiled turnout machine and the national-security issue -- all have been somewhat neutralized by the political winds buffeting the party. Democrats need to gain a net 15 seats for a House majority, and they now have polls showing leads in about 40 Republican-held districts from New England through the Mountain West -- with none of their own in serious jeopardy.

Republican spending records indicate greatly diminished hopes of unseating Democratic incumbents in Ohio, West Virginia, South Carolina and Texas, while some of their own incumbents once thought safe, such as Rep. Gil Gutknecht in Minnesota, are now in Democrats' sights. Republican Rep. Curt Weldon, already fighting for his political life in Pennsylvania, now is the subject of a Federal Bureau of Investigation corruption probe.

As for the Senate, the six seats Democrats need for a 51-seat majority no longer are thought to be out of reach, strategists in both parties agree. Pulling it off will mean some fairly dramatic in-roads into Republican territory: defeating red-state incumbents, Sens. George Allen of Virginia and Jon Kyl of Arizona, or having Tennessee voters make Democratic Rep. Harold Ford the first African-American elected statewide there.

Democratic rank-and-file voters continue to appear significantly more eager to show up on Election Day, a sign that Republicans' get-out-the-vote efforts may not provide the political insurance they are banking on. Some 60% of Democratic voters express the highest possible level of interest in the election, compared with 48% of Republicans. Similarly, 53% of Democrats call themselves more enthusiastic than in the past about voting, compared with 38% of Republicans.

Mr. McInturff recalled that Republicans enjoyed a similar double-digit edge in voter enthusiasm prior to the 1994 election, when Democrats were the demoralized party. But this year, Republicans are disillusioned by huge federal spending, scandals, illegal immigration and Congress's inaction on a raft of issues.

According to the poll, the electorate overall embraces the idea of breaking up the Republican Party's six-year hold on power in both the legislative and executive branches. By 48% to 26%, voters call Republican control of the White House, House and Senate "a bad thing." Nearly four of 10 voters say their vote for Congress will be a signal of opposition to Mr. Bush; two in 10 say it will signal support for him.

On key issues, Democrats hold the upper hand. They enjoy a 28-percentage-point edge on the question of which party could best deal with Social Security, the issue Mr. Bush unsuccessfully sought to capitalize on in 2005; a 13-point lead in handling the economy; a 10-point edge on ethics in government; and a three-point edge on immigration, which congressional Republicans had hoped to make their signature issue.

Republicans retained their edge, though diminished, on dealing with the fight against terror, nuclear proliferation and moral issues.

But public dismay over Iraq and the Foley scandal overwhelmed all else for Republicans. Mr. Hart called the Foley story "the coagulant" that caused voters' uncertainties about the Republican-led Congress to jell. "This is the event that allowed certain voters to say, 'Enough,' " he said.

By 47% to 14%, voters say what they have learned in recent weeks makes them feel "less favorable" toward Republicans retaining their majority on Capitol Hill. By contrast, voters say by 37% to 22% that they feel more favorably disposed toward Democrats winning control.

Nearly all have heard of the Foley scandal, and most are unhappy with how House Speaker Dennis Hastert and other Republican leaders have handled it.

Fully 55% -- including four of 10 conservatives -- are dissatisfied with the actions of Republican leaders. That is twice the 27% who say they are satisfied.

Amid unrelenting bad news from Iraq as sectarian violence rages there, just 33% of voters approve of Mr. Bush's handling of the war, down from 36% in June. Disapproval has risen to 63%.

By an overwhelming 68% to 20%, voters calls themselves "less optimistic" about the course of events in Iraq. A 57% majority says the president hasn't given good reasons for U.S. troops to remain there. And ominously for Republican congressional candidates, a 39% plurality say Democrats could better deal with Iraq, while 31% prefer Republicans. That reverses the five-point edge Republicans held early last month.

By 40% to 31%, a plurality of voters now see the situation in Iraq as a civil war among Iraqis, rather than a war between American troops and foreign terrorists there. Significantly, Mr. McInturff said, that assessment is shared by those who voted for Mr. Bush in 2004 and those who supported Democratic Sen. John Kerry for president -- groups that agree on little else.

If Americans continue to see U.S. troops caught in the middle of a civil war, Mr. McInturff said, "that will ratchet up the pressure to terminate our deployment in Iraq."

User avatar
SLK230
Posts: 9070
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 4:16 pm

Re: The dilemma for Republicans

Post by SLK230 » Thu Oct 19, 2006 10:35 am

Hanna wrote:This, of course, is the problem.

Once Republicans took control, they threw away their "small governement" banner. So, I suppose, on this point they call Bush "left of Center."

However, anyone who claims that god (which one, by the way) told him to run for office, to invade Iraq, to talk to Barney.. is way way on the right.

The old mantra was to "keep government off one's back" but once they took power they may be off one's back (except when there is someone else below it) but they certainly think that it is their business to get into consenting adults' bedrooms, private offices of OB-GYN's schoold children's heart, etc.

What I find interesting is that many of them are against birth control pills that are do not cause abortion, but have no problem with condoms, even though in the same bible that they like to quote, "spilling" one's sperm is a sin.

And, of course, the party that claim to have the "moral values"... need I say more?
I think the reality is they are all liars and full of crap. I see very little difference between any of them.

Bill, Hillary and Bush all could have come from the same party. Certain single issues are different but over they are almost interchangeable.

The only thing for sure is that there are no true Conservatives anymore. There are at best what I call John MC Cain Conservatives which means a liberal in Republican clothing same as Chaffe from Rhode Island.
Conservatism is dead sad but true.

User avatar
Parrotpaul
Posts: 33550
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 2:14 pm

Re: The dilemma for Republicans

Post by Parrotpaul » Thu Oct 19, 2006 11:27 am

SLK230 wrote: Conservatism is dead sad but true.
Assuming what you say is true, Al...why do you suppose that happened?

User avatar
SLK230
Posts: 9070
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 4:16 pm

Re: The dilemma for Republicans

Post by SLK230 » Thu Oct 19, 2006 11:51 am

Parrotpaul wrote:Assuming what you say is true, Al...why do you suppose that happened?
I think the lefties are now and have been better/smarter politician's. The Republicans bought into Political Correctness and wimped out on almost everything.
The left to there credit, seem to be able to hold together as a voting block much better then the wimpy Republicans.

The left also seems to get a boost by the rather liberal Supreme court of the past. It is changing now but even today the votes to overturn Roe still isn't there.

What kind of Republicans are Bush, Specture, Chaffe, Mc Cain etc..etc..etc..
None of the above share my views but in fact are closer to yours.

Hanna
Posts: 2766
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 8:11 pm

Republicans like Schmitz?

Post by Hanna » Thu Oct 19, 2006 9:14 pm

About Schmitz
Posted by Paul Brennan under Main

Let us pause a moment and remember one of those people who made Orange County so very Orange County-ish: John Schmitz (1930-2001). Usually when Schmitz is remembered these days, if he is remembered at all, it is for being the father of Mary Kay Letourneau, who became internationally famous as a dedicated teacher/statutory rapist. But Schmitz was a remarkable piece of work in his own right– a barking-mad right-wing Republican politician, who did his best to live up to the high standard of barking-madness set by OC Congressman James Utt, whose seat Schmitz held for two years after Utt’s death in 1970. Utt, who inspired the memorable slogan “Utt is Nuts”, achieved national fame in 1963, when he claimed that the United Nations had a secret military camp in Georgia, where it was training an army of “barefooted Africans” as part of planned coup to take over the United States.

Schmitz also briefly grabbed a little of the national spotlight by talking about a coup, and today is the 25th anniversary of Schmitz’s famous statement. On October 19, 1981,

California state senator John Schmitz [after losing in the GOP congressional primary in 1972, and losing in the 1972 presidential election, in which he ran as the candidate of a far-right, pro-white-supremacist party, he was elected in 1978 to represent OC in the state senate] tells a TV interviewer that if Reagan’s policies fail, “the best we could probably hope for is a military coup or something like that.” He explains that he is talking about “a good military coup, not a bad military coup.”

That’s right, a good coup, not a bad one. Presumably a good coup is one that doesn’t involve barefooted Africans.

Schmitz’s political career came to end the following year. Not because of his political views, but because some hair was so tightly wrapped around the penis of a baby, that the little Orange County boy required medical attention. Doctors were convinced that the hair had been deliberately tied around the penis– one doctor described it as “a square knot”– and in the ensuing investigation, it emerged that Schmitz was the boy’s father, even though the mother wasn’t Mrs. Schmitz. And it was revealed that the boy with the hair-clamped penis wasn’t the only extramarital Schmitz offspring. Schmitz’s political career was over. To sum up: being pro-military coup, acceptable; cheating on your wife, game over.

So, as we come up to an election in which Republicans have been more shamed by the sexual appetites of one congressman than by enshrining torture in U.S. law while gutting habeas corpus, let’s take a moment to remember John Schmitz. He was more than just the father of a statutory rapist, he was one of the people who made Orange County so very Orange County-ish.

http://blogs.ocweekly.com/blotter/about-schmitz/

User avatar
SLK230
Posts: 9070
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 4:16 pm

Re: Republicans like Schmitz?

Post by SLK230 » Sun Oct 22, 2006 5:56 am

Hanna wrote:About Schmitz
Posted by Paul Brennan under Main

Let us pause a moment and remember one of those people who made Orange County so very Orange County-ish: John Schmitz (1930-2001). Usually when Schmitz is remembered these days, if he is remembered at all, it is for being the father of Mary Kay Letourneau, who became internationally famous as a dedicated teacher/statutory rapist. But Schmitz was a remarkable piece of work in his own right– a barking-mad right-wing Republican politician, who did his best to live up to the high standard of barking-madness set by OC Congressman James Utt, whose seat Schmitz held for two years after Utt’s death in 1970. Utt, who inspired the memorable slogan “Utt is Nuts”, achieved national fame in 1963, when he claimed that the United Nations had a secret military camp in Georgia, where it was training an army of “barefooted Africans” as part of planned coup to take over the United States.

Schmitz also briefly grabbed a little of the national spotlight by talking about a coup, and today is the 25th anniversary of Schmitz’s famous statement. On October 19, 1981,

California state senator John Schmitz [after losing in the GOP congressional primary in 1972, and losing in the 1972 presidential election, in which he ran as the candidate of a far-right, pro-white-supremacist party, he was elected in 1978 to represent OC in the state senate] tells a TV interviewer that if Reagan’s policies fail, “the best we could probably hope for is a military coup or something like that.” He explains that he is talking about “a good military coup, not a bad military coup.”

That’s right, a good coup, not a bad one. Presumably a good coup is one that doesn’t involve barefooted Africans.

Schmitz’s political career came to end the following year. Not because of his political views, but because some hair was so tightly wrapped around the penis of a baby, that the little Orange County boy required medical attention. Doctors were convinced that the hair had been deliberately tied around the penis– one doctor described it as “a square knot”– and in the ensuing investigation, it emerged that Schmitz was the boy’s father, even though the mother wasn’t Mrs. Schmitz. And it was revealed that the boy with the hair-clamped penis wasn’t the only extramarital Schmitz offspring. Schmitz’s political career was over. To sum up: being pro-military coup, acceptable; cheating on your wife, game over.

So, as we come up to an election in which Republicans have been more shamed by the sexual appetites of one congressman than by enshrining torture in U.S. law while gutting habeas corpus, let’s take a moment to remember John Schmitz. He was more than just the father of a statutory rapist, he was one of the people who made Orange County so very Orange County-ish.

http://blogs.ocweekly.com/blotter/about-schmitz/
Sorry Hanna but I remember Schmitz as more of a buffoon then anything else.

mvmike
Posts: 33
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2006 7:38 am

Barrons predicts the Pubs will hold both houses in November

Post by mvmike » Sun Oct 22, 2006 2:58 pm

The pubs will surely lose house and senate seats -- that's a foregone conclusion in this second term midterm election. Pick up any newspaper and you'll find a prediction of a huge dem landslide this November.

But the polls are notoriously inaccurate in close races, as everyone discovered the past six years or so. Barrons doesn't seem to buy into the current polling-based dire predictions (see below.)

Maybe Barrons is guilty of "whistling past the graveyard" -- or maybe they've done a more thorough job of evaluating the available polling data: but what the hey, maybe we should just go ahead and have the vote anyway, despite the poll numbers -- y'think?
Our analysis -- based on a race-by-race examination of campaign-finance data -- suggests that the GOP will hang on to both chambers, at least nominally. We expect the Republican majority in the House to fall by eight seats, to 224 of the chamber's 435. At the very worst, our analysis suggests, the party's loss could be as large as 14 seats, leaving a one-seat majority.
http://online.barrons.com/article/SB116 ... viewed_day

Pinky
Posts: 153
Joined: Sat Nov 17, 2007 2:22 pm

Re: Righties or lefties..Where Do You Come Down?

Post by Pinky » Tue Nov 20, 2007 12:59 am

Parrotpaul wrote:...I'm a liberal...
What liberal positions do you take?

Are you for open borders?
Are you for decriminalizing marijuana, and drugs in general?
Do you favor allowing businesses to set their own smoking policies?
Should minimum drinking ages be eliminated?
Should state funding of education allow for parental choice of school?
Should it be against the law to sell a body part/organ?
Is free and unfettered trade to be the rule?
Should the state recognize gay marriage if it must recognize marriage?
Is the Patriot act an abomination?
Does the state have a legitimate interest in a terminally ill person's choice to end his/her life?
Should you be able to arm yourself to the hilt?
Should restrictions against prostitution and gambling be eliminated?

I happen to think that every one of the positions those questions imply are liberal positions. I think I've already heard you take illiberal positions with regard to drugs, school choice, open borders, free trade, drinking age, and smoking. I think you'd be more correct to call yourself a progressive.

User avatar
GOODave
Posts: 26392
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 6:21 pm

Re: Righties or lefties..Where Do You Come Down?

Post by GOODave » Tue Nov 20, 2007 7:49 am

Pinky wrote:What liberal positions do you take?

Are you for open borders?
Are you for decriminalizing marijuana, and drugs in general?
Do you favor allowing businesses to set their own smoking policies?
Should minimum drinking ages be eliminated?
Should state funding of education allow for parental choice of school?
Should it be against the law to sell a body part/organ?
Is free and unfettered trade to be the rule?
Should the state recognize gay marriage if it must recognize marriage?
Is the Patriot act an abomination?
Does the state have a legitimate interest in a terminally ill person's choice to end his/her life?
Should you be able to arm yourself to the hilt?
Should restrictions against prostitution and gambling be eliminated?

I happen to think that every one of the positions those questions imply are liberal positions. I think I've already heard you take illiberal positions with regard to drugs, school choice, open borders, free trade, drinking age, and smoking. I think you'd be more correct to call yourself a progressive.
EVERY Liberal prefers to call themselves "progressive," Pink. NO ONE wants to be called a "liberal," for crying out loud...too much baggage associated with it (which you capably capture, above). Whereas "Neo-Conservative" does look different from a "conservative," progressives look no different from what we used to call Liberals. The name has been changed to protect the guilty. ;)

BTW, to all but two of your questions, my response would be "no."

School Choice: Yes
Free Trade: Yes, but within reason (still SOME need for rules)
State interest in Terminally Ill: No, but still MIGHT have so "conditional" no.

dave

Post Reply