Ohio recount indictments

[cnredd]

I think there is a key distinction that needs to be made concerning the accusations made either party towards an acting president. To a certain extent, you are right that pretty much all criticism of the President is an opinion. We criticize his morals, we criticize his judgement and we criticize his motives, but the one key think we generally DON'T do is challenge his authority.

No anti-war protesters challenges the president's authority to invade iraq, just his judgement to do so. No one is questioning his authority to declassify documents concerning valerie plame, only his motives behind doing so. Even in the wiretapping issue, in which the issue is ambiguous as to whether or not he had authority to do such a thing, the public will generally give him the benefit of the doubt, and this issue has already begun to fade away.

I think dissent is healthy: I expect Republicans to criticize a Democratic President for his/her actions just as much as Democrats criticize a Republican one. When we stop criticizing the judgement of our president's decisions, and start questioning his power to make those decisions, then we have truly paralyzed the government.

Unless we reach that point, I'm going to have to disagree with you. Even if we criticize every minute decision a president makes, as long as he still has the power to make decisions, our democratic system remains healthy.

I totally agree with your sentiment, but disagree that what you've said is NOT what's actually happening...

Dissent is a good thing...But what I'm seeing right now is NOT dissent...

I see Congressmen calling our troops "terrorists" and equating them to Pol Pot and Nazis...

I see people calling our President Hitler...

I see a Senator calling for censure when you say the subject is fading...

I see attacks on his communication skills...

I see the anti-Bush photos like this one and this one...

I see people putting their party before their country...

I see funerals become political rallies...

I see people insulting his family...

This stuff isn't dissent...It's outright mocking and attacking...

And if you don't think people aren't questioning his authority, I suggest you google "Impeach Bush" and tell me what you come up with...

 

[Mikkel]

I totally agree with your sentiment, but disagree that what you've said is NOT what's actually happening...

Dissent is a good thing...But what I'm seeing right now is NOT dissent...

I see Congressmen calling our troops "terrorists" and equating them to Pol Pot and Nazis...

I see people calling our President Hitler...

I see a Senator calling for censure when you say the subject is fading...

I see attacks on his communication skills...

I see the anti-Bush photos like this one and this one...

I see people putting their party before their country...

I see funerals become political rallies...

I see people insulting his family...

This stuff isn't dissent...It's outright mocking and attacking...

And if you don't think people aren't questioning his authority, I suggest you google "Impeach Bush" and tell me what you come up with...

Being mocked and attacked have been a part of the presidency since the inception of the office. I do think that making funny pictures and calling names is perfectly fine. I don't agree with the Impeach Bush support, but that sentiment doesn't have any legs at all, so I don't see a real threat.

And yes, I think that comparing Bush to Hitler and comparing our troops to terrorists qualifies as dissent. It's dissent that doesn't accomplish anything, but it still qualifies as dissent.

Feingold's call for censure doesn't have enough support in the senate to pass, but even if it did, it would merely be a symbolic slap on the wrist for Bush: Hardly a challenge of his authority.

Blatant partisanship and innapropriate politicization of events (such as funerals) has always existed. If you think some of the things being said today about the president are bad, you should read some of the political papers of the late 18th century.

I agree that not all of this is called for, but it has always existed. And the only way to really filter out the 'good' dissent from the 'bad' dissent would be to infringe upon our 1st amendment rights. I just don't think that's a sacrifice most people are willing to make.

 

[cnredd]

Being mocked and attacked have been a part of the presidency since the inception of the office. I do think that making funny pictures and calling names is perfectly fine. I don't agree with the Impeach Bush support, but that sentiment doesn't have any legs at all, so I don't see a real threat.

Seeing it as a threat wasn't the issue...You saying that no one is trying to undermine his authority was the issue...

Just because it doesn't have legs doesn't mean the attempt isn't sincere...

And yes, I think that comparing Bush to Hitler and comparing our troops to terrorists qualifies as dissent. It's dissent that doesn't accomplish anything, but it still qualifies as dissent.

I said it was mocking and attacking...You say it's dissent...

Does that mean that you classify "mocking and attacking" as a subset of "dissent"?...

Feingold's call for censure doesn't have enough support in the senate to pass, but even if it did, it would merely be a symbolic slap on the wrist for Bush: Hardly a challenge of his authority.

Same answer as my first one..."No legs" does not equal "sincerity"...

And let's face it...You, me, and everyone else here knows that some people want Bush to get slapped on the wrist simply because it's "George Bush" and nothing else...

If I went up to 50 people from the Left and asked, "Do you think GWB should be censured?", there were be more than just a couple who will immediately say "Yes" instead of asking the real question "For what issue?"...

Some don't care...A slap at Bush will make them smile...irrelevant of the reasoning...I could say , "Because he's a poopy-pants", and they'd STILL say "Yes"...

And that's sad...

Blatant partisanship and innapropriate politicization of events (such as funerals) has always existed. If you think some of the things being said today about the president are bad, you should read some of the political papers of the late 18th century.

Oh I agree wholeheartedly...

Maybe my issue is more of these two things...

1) The number of outlets where blatant partisanship is shown has increased exponentially in the last few years...blogs, op-ed shows, pundits...They've always been around, but nowhere near the extent they've been...and the large stage they stand on...as in the last few years...

2) Outlets that you EXPECT not to show partisanship jumping into the fray...
Newsweek calling him "The boy in the bubble" with accompanying artwork of this on the cover?...An operator from CNN telling on the phone telling a viewer it was OK to put an "X" on Cheney's face?

I'd expect that from moveon.org or The National Review...Not Newsweek and CNN...

I agree that not all of this is called for, but it has always existed. And the only way to really filter out the 'good' dissent from the 'bad' dissent would be to infringe upon our 1st amendment rights. I just don't think that's a sacrifice most people are willing to make.

Here's where I'm gonna need to clarify...I'm not pointing at you directly but I gotta real big problem with this...

It's...not...about...freedom...of...speech!!!!!!!!!!!

It's about when people have the decency to stop themselves from commenting in an insulting manner....

Am I allowed to yell "Spic" down at City Hall?...Am I free to show my "expression" by running up and down the street wearing blackface?...Can I write a letter to my Congressman saying that I think he should stab himself in the eyes?...

Yup....Your First Amendment lives on...

Then why don't I do it?...Because "I" think it's wrong...I stop myself...

That's where my issue lies...

Just as you could come up to me and say "Don't you think it's not cool to run up and down the street wearing blackface?", I want to go up to the Durbins and Kerrys and Sheehans and Bennishes and Churchills and ask them, "Don't you think it's not cool to express yourselves the way you do?"...

And the sad part is they would say "No"(Durbin did backpeddle a touch)...They think its very cool and patriotic and doing their duty and every other phrase they could come up with...

That "line in the sand" where people use to stop themselves is a lot lower nowadays...Dare I say for some, it doesn't even exist anymore...They wallow in their harshness...They aim for the nuts...

Then cheer when they make contact...

 

[Mikkel]

"I said it was mocking and attacking...You say it's dissent...

Does that mean that you classify "mocking and attacking" as a subset of "dissent"?..."

If it's politically motivated, sure it's dissent.

"If I went up to 50 people from the Left and asked, "Do you think GWB should be censured?", there were be more than just a couple who will immediately say "Yes" instead of asking the real question "For what issue?"...

Some don't care...A slap at Bush will make them smile...irrelevant of the reasoning...I could say , "Because he's a poopy-pants", and they'd STILL say "Yes"..."

It's not like this exact thing didn't happen in the 90's with Clinton and his impeachment. But you're right when you said earlier in your post:

"Just because it doesn't have legs doesn't mean the attempt isn't sincere..."

You're completely right here. I don't agree with people who think we should punish bush for exercizing authority he rightfully has (though I wouldn't have given him the authority in the first place). My only point here was that even though calls for impeachment and censure exist, they aren't anywhere near a real threat of actually undermining GWB's authority.

"2) Outlets that you EXPECT not to show partisanship jumping into the fray...
Newsweek calling him "The boy in the bubble" with accompanying artwork of this on the cover?...An operator from CNN telling on the phone telling a viewer it was OK to put an "X" on Cheney's face?

I'd expect that from moveon.org or The National Review...Not Newsweek and CNN..."

This isn't a product of the political world, it's a product of the television and media businesses. It's called narrowcasting, or niche marketing. The media in general, especially television stations, market directly towards narrower and narrower audiences because having 'widespread' appeal is no longer profitable. So liberals can listen to air america, and watch CNN operators say it's ok to put an x on cheney's face, and conservatives can listen to limbaugh, and watch o'reilly tell them that it's ok if terrorists blow up coit tower. If you think accusing them of being "biased' (I use quotes because all news is biased) is going to end the partisan hackery, you're wrong. It only helps them establish business in their niche market.

"That "line in the sand" where people use to stop themselves is a lot lower nowadays...Dare I say for some, it doesn't even exist anymore...They wallow in their harshness...They aim for the nuts...

Then cheer when they make contact..."

This is interesting and could very well be true. I'm just not sure that that 'line of sand' ever really existed. The truth is, you probably know a little better than I do (me being young and all).

"The number of outlets where blatant partisanship is shown has increased exponentially in the last few years...blogs, op-ed shows, pundits...They've always been around, but nowhere near the extent they've been...and the large stage they stand on...as in the last few years..."

It is true that there is more room for extreme and sometimes radical views to be expressed on the airwaves and throughout the political media. But as Alexis De Tocqueville said: "The word of a strong-minded man which alone reaches to the passions of a mute assembly has more power than the confused cries of a thousand orators...." The more outlets there are for differences of opinion, the less powerful each opinion becomes. I'm not worried about the increase of extremims being represented in the media... if anything, I'm worried about the decrease of moderates being represented. Recent technology have given millions of people a voice, for better or worse, and now we have to figure out a way to make things work. :shrug:

 

[cnredd]

If it's politically motivated, sure it's dissent.

From a legal standpoint, of course...

I'm talking from a social standpoint...You would think people would be more critical of their own citizens...

They bitch about people on cellphones while driving and having 11 items in the "10 items or less" aisle, but have no problem when someone says "George Bush hates black people."

That tells you what society has denegrated to...

It's not like this exact thing didn't happen in the 90's with Clinton and his impeachment. But you're right when you said earlier in your post:

"Just because it doesn't have legs doesn't mean the attempt isn't sincere..."

You're completely right here. I don't agree with people who think we should punish bush for exercizing authority he rightfully has (though I wouldn't have given him the authority in the first place). My only point here was that even though calls for impeachment and censure exist, they aren't anywhere near a real threat of actually undermining GWB's authority.

Second time I've agreed here, but once again, this is NOT the issue...real threat or not, it exists...

If you have one person on the corner screaming for impeachment, you could say that's an individual effort...

But it's dozens, hundreds, or most likely, thousands...That's not individual...That's a movement...

This isn't a product of the political world, it's a product of the television and media businesses. It's called narrowcasting, or niche marketing. The media in general, especially television stations, market directly towards narrower and narrower audiences because having 'widespread' appeal is no longer profitable. So liberals can listen to air america, and watch CNN operators say it's ok to put an x on cheney's face, and conservatives can listen to limbaugh, and watch o'reilly tell them that it's ok if terrorists blow up coit tower. If you think accusing them of being "biased' (I use quotes because all news is biased) is going to end the partisan hackery, you're wrong. It only helps them establish business in their niche market.

But you would think CERTAIN ones would be above the fray...like Newsweek & CNN...

Apparently, they're willing to lose what rep they had in favor of the "Can't beat 'em, might as well join 'em" mentally...

This is interesting and could very well be true. I'm just not sure that that 'line of sand' ever really existed. The truth is, you probably know a little better than I do (me being young and all).

Hey pal...36 ain't old...Keep it up and I'll hit you with my walker...

The line has always existed...Once again, individuals have their own "line", but it's usually dictated by society...

Would anyone allow commercials with naked people on a Wednesday afternoon on Nickelodeon?(You know some idiots will, but I think you get my point here.)...

As I've said earlier, that "line" seems to be getting lower and lower everyday...and it saddens me...

It is true that there is more room for extreme and sometimes radical views to be expressed on the airwaves and throughout the political media. But as Alexis De Tocqueville said: "The word of a strong-minded man which alone reaches to the passions of a mute assembly has more power than the confused cries of a thousand orators...." The more outlets there are for differences of opinion, the less powerful each opinion becomes. I'm not worried about the increase of extremims being represented in the media... if anything, I'm worried about the decrease of moderates being represented. Recent technology have given millions of people a voice, for better or worse, and now we have to figure out a way to make things work. :shrug:

From a previous post of mine...

Take any President...Now imagine how far worse they would appear if they had 24 hour news channels, internet weblogs, instant access articles and op-ed pieces, and the media's neverending appetite for style over substance...

Somebody resigns in Eisenhower's administration, it got a footnote on page 3 of your local paper...Somebody resigns in Bush's administration, it gets coverage every 20 minutes on multiple channels, partisan websites, and yes...even debate forums...

And don't forget the pundits who are more than happy to tell you what it all means...

For all we know, JFK's shiny armor could've been tarnished had he had to deal with Helen Thomas, Ann Coulter, Al Franken, Rush Limbaugh, and plenty of others...

GWB is the first President that has to deal with this in full force...

Sadly, he won't be the last...

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

I don't think you can call either the 2000 or 2004 a "major national rejection". Approximately 1/2 the voters rejected GWB and that doesn't include those who didn't vote.
It was ridiculous for Bush to call it a "Mandate" (in the same manner). He talked about having "Political capital" to spend. Look how much he was able to buy with that Political capital.

It was the largest win margin in terms of the number of votes that Bush won by in U.S. history.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Yes....as a matter of fact he did, and he said many other things as well:

IN HIS OWN WORDS: WHAT TOM DELAY USED TO SAY…

• “This is [President Clinton’s] war.” Washington Post, 4/14/99

• “The Kosovo operation is different and oxymoronic. It is a ‘peace war’ waged by ‘peace hawks’ pursuing a dovish social agenda. Peace hawks are global idealists and former anti-war activists, including the youthful Bill Clinton.” Floor Statement, 4/15/99

• “Doing good on a worldwide scale appeals to peace hawks, who are motivated by altruism, not patriotism.” Floor Statement, 4/15/99

• “There's no national interest of the United States in Kosovo. It's flawed policy and it was flawed to go in. I think this president is one of the least effective presidents of my life time. He's hollowed out our forces while running round the world with these adventures.” The Guardian, 5/17/99

• “American foreign policy is now one huge big mystery. Simply put, the administration is trying to lead the world with a feel-good foreign policy.” Floor Statement on Resolution on Peacekeeping Operations in Kosovo, 3/11/99

• “Bombing a sovereign nation for ill-defined reasons with vague objectives undermines the American stature in the world. The international respect and trust for America has diminished every time we casually let the bombs fly. We must stop giving the appearance that our foreign policy is formulated by the Unabomber.” Floor Statement on Resolution on Peacekeeping Operations in Kosovo, 3/11/99

• “Mr. Chairman, I rise today to voice my complete opposition to sending American troops to Kosovo. There is simply no vision to this mission. There is a six-year trend to send American troops anywhere for any reason, but there are no consistent goals that tie all of these missions together.” Floor Statement on Resolution on Peacekeeping Operations in Kosovo, 3/11/99

• “I rise today to state that no defense funds should be used for ground forces in Kosovo unless authorized by Congress.” Floor Statement, 4/15/99

• “So what they are doing here is they are voting to continue an unplanned war by an administration that is incompetent of [sic] carrying it out. I hope my colleagues will vote against this resolution.” Floor Statement on S. Con. Res. 21, 4/15/99

• “It is clear that any deployment to Kosovo will similarly drag on and go enormously over budget.” Floor Statement, 4/28/99

• “When asked the question, ‘what if he does not come to the table,’ they said, ‘well, we will go to Phase 2, and Phase 2 is that we will bomb for a few more days. Then he will be going to the table, by crackie.’ And when we asked, ‘Then, what?’ then they said, ‘well, we will bomb for another week and that will force him to come to the table and this will be all over with.’ And then when we asked, ‘Then, what?’ there was silence. This administration started a war without a plan farther along than two weeks.” Floor Statement, 4/28/99

• “I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our overextended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today.” Floor Statement, 4/28/99

• “Instead of sending in ground troops, we should pull out the forces we now have in the region. Mr. Speaker, I do not think we should send ground troops to Kosovo and I do not think we should be bombing in the Balkans, and I do not think that NATO should be destroyed by changing its mission into a humanitarian invasion force.” Floor Statement, 4/28/99

• “So what they are doing here is they are voting to continue an unplanned war by an administration that is incompetent of carrying it out. I hope my colleagues will vote against the resolution.” Floor Statement, 4/28/99

• “It’s very simple. The president is not supported by the House, and the military is supported by the House.” As quoted in USA Today, regarding Floor votes on Kosovo, 4/30/99

• “For us to call this a victory and to commend the President of the United States as the Commander in Chief showing great leadership in Operation Allied Force is a farce.” Floor Statement opposing resolution commending America’s successful campaign in Kosovo, 7/1/99

http://democraticwhip.house.gov/media/press.cfm?pressReleaseID=76

This sir is a bullshit argument, the fact of the matter is that Clinton didn't get Congressional approval to deploy the troops and kept them in harms way for longer than the 60 days allowed by the war powers resolution of 1973. He went well beyond his authority as commander and chief and was in total violation of the Constitution. The big difference is that in Iraq congress gave permission and now the Democrats want to change their position after the fact. It is simply unconsciounable to send mixed signals to the troops who are in harms way. If the Democrats were against the war then they damn sure should have voted against it!!!

 

[Mikkel]

It was the largest win margin in terms of the number of votes that Bush won by in U.S. history.

Yes, but that's only because it was the highest turnout in US history. If you'll remember, John Kerry got more votes than any democratic candidate in US history, and he still lost. When that many people vote in an election, it isn't the differential in actual votes that makes a difference, but the differential percentage-wise that actually means something. So you can skew the data all you want, but Bush still only got 51% of the vote.

 

[My_name_is_not_Larry]

Why is it that I see these brand new computers that work as clean as a whistle and as fast as lightning, yet when it comes to voting machines, they never work?

And for those who keep accusing me of plagairsm:

I got this question from a radio show

There. (stupid.... people.....who ...accuse me....for..no...deal...stupid...*mumbles*)

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Yes, but that's only because it was the highest turnout in US history. If you'll remember, John Kerry got more votes than any democratic candidate in US history, and he still lost. When that many people vote in an election, it isn't the differential in actual votes that makes a difference, but the differential percentage-wise that actually means something. So you can skew the data all you want, but Bush still only got 51% of the vote.

Well good for that, Bush still won by something like 1.5 MILLION votes and check out a map sometime, so take a puff on that pipe and bite down.

 

[Pacridge]

Well good for that, Bush still won by something like 1.5 MILLION votes and check out a map sometime, so take a puff on that pipe and bite down.

I think if you check the final results you'll find Bush Jr. won by over 3 million. So? Clinton won by nearly 5.5 million votes. You have to spin it hard to make either of these victories a "mandate." Want to look at a land slide or a mandate go back to 1972 when Nixon clocked McGovern by some 18 million.

Spinning it as a major victory or mandate because Bush won by more votes then anyone else is just like saying home ownership is at all time high. It's a figure that, basically, rises with the population. Taking credit for it is like taking credit for the sun coming up in the morning.

Both he and Clinton won by narrow victories, slim margins showing how divided we've become. The two major parties of this country seem to be doing everything they can to find our differences. Sort of divide and conquer. All, IMO, to gain power. The notion of "United We Stand" stands not in anyones way when seeking power, again-IMO.


BTW- there's no need for the jerk like comment about the pipe. Let's not sink to that level.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

I think if you check the final results you'll find Bush Jr. won by over 3 million. So? Clinton won by nearly 5.5 million votes. You have to spin it hard to make either of these victories a "mandate." Want to look at a land slide or a mandate go back to 1972 when Nixon clocked McGovern by some 18 million.

Spinning it as a major victory or mandate because Bush won by more votes then anyone else is just like saying home ownership is at all time high. It's a figure that, basically, rises with the population. Taking credit for it is like taking credit for the sun coming up in the morning.

Both he and Clinton won by narrow victories, slim margins showing how divided we've become. The two major parties of this country seem to be doing everything they can to find our differences. Sort of divide and conquer. All, IMO, to gain power. The notion of "United We Stand" stands not in anyones way when seeking power, again-IMO.


BTW- there's no need for the jerk like comment about the pipe. Let's not sink to that level.

Well I might consider voting Democrat if it wasn't for the fact that the party has become dominated by the fringe left which stands in direct contradiction to everything I believe. I don't think it's a good thing that the country is run by one party but the Democrats keep doing everything they can to keep it that way. Where are the Kennedy's, where are the Roosevelt's? Now you have the Dean's and the Durbin's and the Kerry's.

 

[Mikkel]

Well good for that, Bush still won by something like 1.5 MILLION votes and check out a map sometime, so take a puff on that pipe and bite down.

I wasn't refuting Bush's right to the office, I was merely pointing out the horrible :spin: in the words you chose to bolster your point. I also find it ironic that you're looking for democrats NOT on the fringe left, and cite Kennedy and Roosevelt; two presidents who (despite mass appeal) managed to greatly further leftist causes. Deans, Durbins, and Kerrys pale in comparison.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

I wasn't refuting Bush's right to the office, I was merely pointing out the horrible :spin: in the words you chose to bolster your point. I also find it ironic that you're looking for democrats NOT on the fringe left, and cite Kennedy and Roosevelt; two presidents who (despite mass appeal) managed to greatly further leftist causes. Deans, Durbins, and Kerrys pale in comparison.

I don't recall Kennedy calling our troops terrorists or equating them with Nazi's. And Kennedy cut taxes by the way.

 

[Mikkel]

I don't recall Kennedy calling our troops terrorists or equating them with Nazi's. And Kennedy cut taxes by the way.

He also promoted federal aid for education, as well as Medicare and the Civil Rights movement. If it weren't for the fact that he couldn't get a majority in congress on a lot of these issues, he would have passed a lot more liberal legislation.

And just so we understand, the buzzword back then wasn't 'terrorist' the same way it is today. It was 'communist'. I do remember a Republican Senator from around that time blindly labeling US citizens as communists, however...

 

[Pacridge]

Well I might consider voting Democrat if it wasn't for the fact that the party has become dominated by the fringe left which stands in direct contradiction to everything I believe. I don't think it's a good thing that the country is run by one party but the Democrats keep doing everything they can to keep it that way. Where are the Kennedy's, where are the Roosevelt's? Now you have the Dean's and the Durbin's and the Kerry's.

I have no idea how that responds in any way to my post. I understand your logic concerning an inability to support the Dem. party. Heck, I have to take a shower just about each time I vote for either parties candidate. Just don't see what that has to do with your original statement that Bush won by such a large amount.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

I have no idea how that responds in any way to my post. I understand your logic concerning an inability to support the Dem. party. Heck, I have to take a shower just about each time I vote for either parties candidate. Just don't see what that has to do with your original statement that Bush won by such a large amount.

Well you were talking about how divided this country has become along party lines:

Both he and Clinton won by narrow victories, slim margins showing how divided we've become. The two major parties of this country seem to be doing everything they can to find our differences. Sort of divide and conquer. All, IMO, to gain power. The notion of "United We Stand" stands not in anyones way when seeking power, again-IMO.

So I said why exactly I am so opposed to ever voting for the current Democratic party. it's not because I'm a die hard Republican it's because the Democrats have gone completely insane and have been going down hill since the late sixties.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

He also promoted federal aid for education, as well as Medicare and the Civil Rights movement. If it weren't for the fact that he couldn't get a majority in congress on a lot of these issues, he would have passed a lot more liberal legislation.

And just so we understand, the buzzword back then wasn't 'terrorist' the same way it is today. It was 'communist'. I do remember a Republican Senator from around that time blindly labeling US citizens as communists, however...

lmfao

A) Find me a conservative against civil rights, **** I want Powell for President.

B) The Communists were just as much of a threat then as the terrorists are now. Ever hear of the Venona files or Alger Hiss? When the Soviet Union fell it proved that McCarthy was right.

 

[Mikkel]

lmfao

A) Find me a conservative against civil rights, **** I want Powell for President.

B) The Communists were just as much of a threat then as the terrorists are now. Ever hear of the Venona files or Alger Hiss? When the Soviet Union fell it proved that McCarthy was right.

A) At the time, Barry Goldwater for one. During a period in which half of the Democratic party was opposed to civil rights, I'd definitely qualify JFK a liberal for his time.

B) Being right about Alger Hiss doesn't make McCarthy's actions right. As a so-called libertarian, I wouldn't imagine you'd find McCarthy's practices appealing. Maybe I'm wrong, but McCarthy being right about one thing doesn't make up for all the wrong he did to get there. The ends don't justify the means.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

A) At the time, Barry Goldwater for one. During a period in which half of the Democratic party was opposed to civil rights, I'd definitely qualify JFK a liberal for his time.

Exactly it was the Democrats who were opposed to civil rights not the Republicans.

B) Being right about Alger Hiss doesn't make McCarthy's actions right. As a so-called libertarian, I wouldn't imagine you'd find McCarthy's practices appealing. Maybe I'm wrong, but McCarthy being right about one thing doesn't make up for all the wrong he did to get there. The ends don't justify the means.

Not one thing sport google the venona files on wikipedia and I happen to think that in the defense of America and the free world against Soviet exansionism the ends sure as hell did justify the means.

 

[Mikkel]

Exactly it was the Democrats who were opposed to civil rights not the Republicans.



Not one thing sport google the venona files on wikipedia and I happen to think that in the defense of America and the free world against Soviet exansionism the ends sure as hell did justify the means.

And you know who the Democrats were, who opposed civil rights? The Solid South. You know which way they're voting now, BECAUSE of civil rights issues? Republican.

Soviet expansionism? Are you claiming that McCarthy's practices brought down the Soviet Union? If so, it must have been a heck of a plan to start a chain effect that would topple it 40 years later. And I'm sure the discovery and prosecution of a soviet spy who retired 10 years prior to the investigation was crucial to USSR's downfall. :roll: We managed to hold our own for the next 3 decades without McCarthy's practices- ahem- 'terrorizing' US citizens.

 

[Pacridge]

Well you were talking about how divided this country has become along party lines:



So I said why exactly I am so opposed to ever voting for the current Democratic party. it's not because I'm a die hard Republican it's because the Democrats have gone completely insane and have been going down hill since the late sixties.

So for you it's a lesser of two evils?

I find I can't be "die hard" either party because both have so many faults. Giving power to either, in an extreme, is dangerous, IMO. Buying into either party's spin is dangerous. Only looking at the negative or the positive of either party is dangerous. Though admittedly I have serious trouble finding positive in either. Both are largely controlled by big money, large corporations and lust for power and greed. Yet both claim to their base their real motives are to look out for the average American and whats best for the country. I honestly don't think either party cares about what best for anything other then gaining power. IMO, they'll say and do anything to gain that power.