• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

One Party Rule

LazarusLong

New member
Joined
Jun 1, 2005
Messages
13
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Let me start with a simple statement: I am a Democrat. Always have been and always will be. This makes what follows much harder to say.

If you look at the last presidential election you have to ask , "How in the world did Bush win?" Consider the following:

1. The stock market was far below what it was when he took office.
2. Unemployment was almost double what it was in 2000
3. In his first four year tenure he turned a budget surplus into a huge
budget deficit with no end in sight.
4. We were in a war that should never have been started and it is clear
that the administration "cooked the books" to create a threat where
no threat existed.
5. Spending by the Republican controlled congress and the Republican
controlled white house had increased far faster and higher than it ever
did under the democrats
6. Passed tax cuts that almost exclusively benefited the richest Americans
and will be paid for by cutting spending for the poor and middle class
(read as cuts in social security, Medicare, veterans benefits, etc.)
7. Alienated almost every other country on the face of the earth to the
point that we are now hated by almost everyone (the return of the
ugly American)

I could go on and on but I think you get the idea. So what great accomplishment did Bush point to and say this is why you should give me another four years? The answer is none. You will note that all of the items listed above concern economic issues or foreign affairs. And these are the issues that Democrats hammered on and it got them nowhere. Voters were clearly concerned with other issues. (The strange workings of the electoral college helped also.)

What Bush brought to the table was one thing: RELIGION. With almost every preacher and catholic priest in the country telling people they will go to hell if they vote democrat it is not too hard to understand why people voted for Bush. After all, what is a few years of economic pain when balanced against eternity in hell. And it gets worse.

Consider this: In 1996 with the US economy humming like a fine machine, no wars, and everything looking good, Bill Clinton could not get 50% of the popular vote. The fact that Ross Periot ran and split the republican vote got Clinton elected in both 1992 and 1996. I can assure you that the republican party will take steps to insure that does not happen again. And here is the kicker: The great depression started in 1929. Hoover had four years to help ease some of the suffering that was going on in the country. He did nothing. When the 1932 election rolled around, yes Roosevelt won but Hoover still got almost 40% of the popular vote and if the south had voted in 1932 the way it now votes (IE republican)there is a good chance that Hoover could have won re election! Now, when the country can be in the financial trash can and people still vote for the party that put it there ( bear in mind that the republican party had complete control of the federal government for the 10 years leading up to the depression) then there are some things going on that we are not talking about. Those things are religion and race. I live in the south and don't kid yourself. The south votes republican on one issue above all others. Southerns believe that the republican party is anti minority and specifically anti black. Why so many people think God is a republican, I don't know. part of it is tied up with abortion but don't forget that this is the same party that gave us Prohibition.

This has not been lost on the republican party. When you look at the news, republicans are walking all over themselves to see who can kiss the collective butt of the religious right the most.

Where does this leave the Democrat party? The answer is simple, nowhere. The party would have to do a hundred eighty degree turn to woo the religious right to vote democrat. In short, become republican. This is not an answer and the republican party is wrong in their position. Freedom of religion should not mean freedom to be a Christian only, and if you are not a Christian we will force you, by law, to obey Christian tenets.

Bottom line: There is no set of economic conditions or world situation that will get someone whose main concern is religious or ethnic to vote democrat, the voting trends since the civil war prove that. (Wilson was also elected because Teddy Roosevelt split the republican vote) and there is nothing in the foreseeable future that is going to change the minds of the churches or the south. So get ready America-here comes the theocracy!

Final note: The south started down the road to being republican in 1964. The only states that Barry Goldwater carried was the deep south and that is because he was perceived as being anti civil rights. The final nails were put in place when Johnson pushed through the civil rights act of 1964
 

ludahai

Defender of the Faith
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
10,320
Reaction score
2,115
Location
Taichung, Taiwan - 2017 East Asian Games Candidate
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
LazarusLong said:
Let me start with a simple statement: I am a Democrat. Always have been and always will be. This makes what follows much harder to say.

If you look at the last presidential election you have to ask , "How in the world did Bush win?" Consider the following:

1. The stock market was far below what it was when he took office.
The NYSE was at about 10,600 when Bush 43 took office. It was nearly 10,100 on the eve of the election in Nov. 2004. A loss of 500 points is not "far below"


2. Unemployment was almost double what it was in 2000
Unemployment at the beginning of 2001 (just before Bush took office) was was about 4.2%. At the end of 2004, it was about 5.5% and on the way back down. That is NOT almost double. Also, as employment is a lagging indicator, the unemployment rate began increasing even as the economy had begun its slowdown at the end of the Clinton administration.

3. In his first four year tenure he turned a budget surplus into a huge
budget deficit with no end in sight.
1. The bubble economy created during the Clinton years collapsed at the end of the CLinton administraion.

2. There is also a little war going on right now that Clinton refused to fight, the War On Terror.

4. We were in a war that should never have been started and it is clear
that the administration "cooked the books" to create a threat where
no threat existed.
That is a matter of debate. I believe that it was right to take Saddam out of Iraq. It was justified, both legally and morally. I know liberals have a hard time looking at the big picture or over the long term, but this WILL be beneficial for the region in the long term.

5. Spending by the Republican controlled congress and the Republican
controlled white house had increased far faster and higher than it ever
did under the democrats -/quote]

Again, there is a war going on out there, a war Clinton and other liberals were afraid to fight, but was necessary.

6. Passed tax cuts that almost exclusively benefited the richest Americans
and will be paid for by cutting spending for the poor and middle class
(read as cuts in social security, Medicare, veterans benefits, etc.)
The tax cuts benefited EVERYONE who pays income taxes!

7. Alienated almost every other country on the face of the earth to the
point that we are now hated by almost everyone (the return of the
ugly American)
Sounds like the Reagan years, but history has shown that Reagan was RIGHT! Even the Europeans admit that now!
 

ludahai

Defender of the Faith
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
10,320
Reaction score
2,115
Location
Taichung, Taiwan - 2017 East Asian Games Candidate
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
LazarusLong said:
And here is the kicker: The great depression started in 1929. Hoover had four years to help ease some of the suffering that was going on in the country. He did nothing. When the 1932 election rolled around, yes Roosevelt won but Hoover still got almost 40% of the popular vote and if the south had voted in 1932 the way it now votes (IE republican)there is a good chance that Hoover could have won re election!
Hoover did nothing?

The Reconstruction Finance Corporation was a plan to pump government funds into private business enterprises in an effort to stimulate the economy. The Reconstruction Finance Corporation (RFC) provided loans to banks, railroads, insurance companies, building and loan associations and agricultural credit organizations. 1.2 BILLION dollars was spend in the first SIX months of operation!

The Relief and Reconstruction Act legislated funds for emergency relief. It granted TWO BILLION dollars to states and municipalities for the construction of public buildings, aid to agriculture, and emergency relief.

The Federal Home Loan Bank Act provided for the creation of home-loan banks around the country to make loans to mortgage-lending institutions.

As for Roosevelt, much of what he passed was ruled unconstitutional, and then he threatened to PACK THE SUPREME COURT because he disagreed with their decisions. The reality is that the United States didn't get out of the great depression until WORLD WAR II. IT was the WAR that got the U.S. out of the depression, NOT the New Deal!
 

stump

Member
Joined
May 23, 2005
Messages
119
Reaction score
0
ludahai said:
Hoover did nothing?
While I don't blame Hoover for the depression it is fairly accurate to say in general terms he did nothing. Obviously he did do some things but overall he did bloody little.

He honestly did not think the recession would be as big of a deal as it was. He thought recovery was imminent and doing anything drastic would be a bad course of action. Which it would have been had Hoover been correct.

When he finally realized he was wrong he did try to jumpstart the economy and you have to give him credit for throwing away his principles and doing what he could to help the American people. But unfortunately it was a case of too little too late. Hindsight is 20/20 and his foresight was horrible.

One thing he did do was sign the Hawley-Smoot Tariff Act. Which only exaccerbated the situation.
 

Redcommie

New member
Joined
May 31, 2005
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Location
The Belly of the BEast
Bush won, but he won by the smallest percentage of any incumbant president who won during wartime, and he only won by a few percentage points.

Plus, the main thing Bush did was that he made the entire election a two issue vote (as many right-wing politicians often do). He made it about Religion & War (man those come together so often).

Also, in almost all of the states that the Gay Marraige Ban bill came up, there was already a law banning gay marraige. What the bill did was motivate fundamentalist voters who wouldn't have voted anyway. By mobilizing the evangelical movement, the Republicans got a big monopoly on the christian vote.

One thing I always wondered about that though, W. is the only president to have a criminal record, and Laura is the only first lady to have ever killed someone (drunk driving incident). And yet christians rally around these people.
 

flip2

Active member
Joined
May 24, 2005
Messages
338
Reaction score
0
Location
Texan by Choice
Redcommie said:
One thing I always wondered about that though, W. is the only president to have a criminal record, and Laura is the only first lady to have ever killed someone (drunk driving incident). And yet christians rally around these people.
Technically--Bush DWI was expunged from his record.
Laura was not found responsible. It was a freak accident, and no one was charged.

The great thing about religion is that it teaches us to repent and to forgive others.

Also, this is the first administration in which all four figure-heads (President, VP, First Lady, and the VP's wife) all have at least a Master's Degree. The only exception is Mrs. Lynne Cheney, who has a Ph.D.

Now, VP Richard Bruce Cheney is the one with the criminal record for DWIs. (I had to edit his first name because I saw **** in its place.)

But, there have been far worse "skeletons in the closet" for other presidents. One that comes to mind is Andrew Jackson, a democrat, who shot and killed someone on the roof of the White House. Oh, those crazy days when men settled arguments with swords and guns. But, I guess we can overlook that "little" incident, 'cuz Jackson was a democrat.
 

flip2

Active member
Joined
May 24, 2005
Messages
338
Reaction score
0
Location
Texan by Choice
LazarusLong said:
1. The stock market was far below what it was when he took office.
As ludahai pointed out, NASDAQ numbers started decreasing because the .com bubble busted during the last year of Clinton's presidency.

LazarusLong said:
2. Unemployment was almost double what it was in 2000
It was up to over 8%? WOW, I must have slept through all that! When Bush was re-elected, the unemployment rate was actually similar to the rate during Clinton's re-election in '96. It was touted then (in 1996) as quite remarkable and at its lowest.

LazarusLong said:
3. In his first four year tenure he turned a budget surplus into a huge budget deficit with no end in sight.

5. Spending by the Republican controlled congress and the Republican
controlled white house had increased far faster and higher than it ever
did under the democrats
9/11/2001 happened. Goverment was restructured and expanded to include the Department of Homeland Security, first proposed by Joe Lieberman. This was the largest restructuring and expansion of the federal government in over 60 years.

LazarusLong said:
7. Alienated almost every other country on the face of the earth to the point that we are now hated by almost everyone (the return of the ugly American)
There has always been, and always will be, the "ugly American." We're the only remaining superpower, the most industrialized, and wealthiest. If we were the most hated, then I don't understand the millions of dollars in trade still being imported; the millions of tourists we receive in our borders every day; the hundreds of thousands of applications for visas and petitions filed every day; the highest respects our nation has from former Soviet Satellites in eastern Europe--unlike their western Europe counterparts--who are now democratic and appreciative of Ronald Reagan's visionary and bold stance against communism; the continued solidarity among Japanese, Filipino, South Korean, Vietnamese, and Taiwanese citizens; the single greatest contribution from a nation for the fight of AIDS in Africa, whose respect is reflected in the most humble and welcomed spirit for U.S. missionaries; as well as the thousands of illegal immigrants that rush into our border to find jobs. I guess we have alienated ourselves from the rest of the world. Our crazy and selfish acts should be stopped.

LazarusLong said:
What Bush brought to the table was one thing: RELIGION. With almost every preacher and catholic priest in the country telling people they will go to hell if they vote democrat it is not too hard to understand why people voted for Bush. After all, what is a few years of economic pain when balanced against eternity in hell. And it gets worse.
If you break down the numbers in the 2004 election, more than 3/4 of those who voted for Bush did so because they liked him; they knew where he stood; they trusted him. Compare that to those who voted for Kerry. Almost 2/3 of those who voted for the MA senator only voted for him because they loathed Bush. Kerry got a large number of votes because he carried the "I hate Bush" votes. He never really offered a true reason to vote for him. He was an alternative candidate, but not necessarily the better candidate. You cannot win elections by simply being the alternative. You win elections by being the better candidate as well. In terms of religion, Bush carried the Catholic vote (remember, Kerry is Catholic). Bush won the undecided vote (remember, historically, the challenger has always won the undecided vote). Bush won the independent vote (remember, historically, independent voters, just like the undecided voters, usually break for the challenger at the end of the election). Bush won the Hispanic vote in Florida. Bush increased his Hispanic vote nationally to within striking distance of the democrats. Had Bush visited California a little more, especially in southern California, along the coastal cities, he could have won CA. Bush increased his vote in the state in 2004 over 2000. If you take a look at how California counties and districts voted, you will see that Kerry carried the major metropolitan cities, thus taking him over the top in CA. But Bush won more than 90% of the counties and voting districts. That number is also reflective of all the counties in the United States.

LazarusLong said:
Consider this: In 1996 with the US economy humming like a fine machine, no wars, and everything looking good, Bill Clinton could not get 50% of the popular vote.
Remember the Reagan tax cuts, whose effects were felt during the 1990s which stimulated the economic growth and surplus. Also remember, it was a Republican led Congress that helped sustain the short-term up-swing stock market by working with Bill Clinton and bringing him to the middle. Unfortunately, the trend of dot-com companies was just that--a trend. Never buy on a trend. They only die real quick.

LazarusLong said:
Where does this leave the Democrat party? The answer is simple, nowhere. The party would have to do a hundred eighty degree turn to woo the religious right to vote democrat. In short, become republican. This is not an answer and the republican party is wrong in their position. Freedom of religion should not mean freedom to be a Christian only, and if you are not a Christian we will force you, by law, to obey Christian tenets.
If this is true, explain a democrat governor of Montana. Explain a democrat governor of Pennsylvania. Explain a democrat governor of Virginia, of South Carolina, of Arizona, of New Mexico, of Iowa.

Explain the senior senator of Florida, Bill Nelson, a democrat. Explain Evan Buyh of Indiana. Explain Ben Nelson of Nebraska. Harry Reid of Nevada. Bingaman of New Mexico.

These men and women represent states that Bush won or lost by close margins (PA). They didn't resort to religion to win voters who, in all probability, split their votes at the ballot.

I think if the democrat party first realizes that religious voters exist, that is a beginning. Once the democrat party stops ridiculing a voter who happens to be religious and takes their faith seriously, they can develop a clear and concise and winning strategy to woo voters who are religious to the democrat party.

But, if democrats as individuals and as a whole continue to make fun of those who pray to God, those voters will continue to be turned off and disgusted by your party, and the Republicans--politically savvy the GOP--will be there to pick them up.

You democrats could easily change your language about the war and poverty and smooth the message out to relate it to faith. If you get that down, then yes, the "religious vote" won't be so monolithic.

Look at Ken Mehlman, the GOP Chairman. He's learned from the 2004 election, and has started to network and campaign in the Latino and black communities to give them a choice, to let them know the Republican party is serious about their communities. Howard Dean and the dems can stand to learn from this genuine guy and start to seriously court the religious.
 
Last edited:

ShamMol

Only Way Round is Through
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
1,988
Reaction score
10
Location
Pasadena, California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Yeah, let's not blame Laura...I like her...

Seriously, you bring up religion about forgiving, yet look at the Texas prisons. Is that an example of this forgiveness that is followed by Christians, including our president.

Oh, and Cheney failed out of Yale, you have to try to fail there, you can at least get Cs easily with the grade inflation. Scary taht he is considered by many the brains.
 

flip2

Active member
Joined
May 24, 2005
Messages
338
Reaction score
0
Location
Texan by Choice
ShamMol said:
Yeah, let's not blame Laura...I like her...

Seriously, you bring up religion about forgiving, yet look at the Texas prisons. Is that an example of this forgiveness that is followed by Christians, including our president.

Oh, and Cheney failed out of Yale, you have to try to fail there, you can at least get Cs easily with the grade inflation. Scary taht he is considered by many the brains.
God gave us free will. Myself, I don't support the idea of using the death penalty. You're right, I don't think that's being so forgiving with all those executions. But, we all have free will. Doesn't justify it, but, well, uh...hey, look at the time.....
 

ShamMol

Only Way Round is Through
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
1,988
Reaction score
10
Location
Pasadena, California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
flip2 said:
God gave us free will. Myself, I don't support the idea of using the death penalty. You're right, I don't think that's being so forgiving with all those executions. But, we all have free will. Doesn't justify it, but, well, uh...hey, look at the time.....
Im talking about the prison system itself, not the death penalty.
 

flip2

Active member
Joined
May 24, 2005
Messages
338
Reaction score
0
Location
Texan by Choice
Oopsidoodle.

Are you talking about overcrowding? The length of incarcerations? Reform programs instituted in correctional facilities? Or just the very existence of having a prison system?

I worked for a telecommunications company in San Antonio, and my department handled direct billing of customers for collect calls to be allowed from prisons in most states. It is devastating at how correctional systems have become a profitable business at the expense of prisoners AND their families. Believe me, I should know. It's made me think about greed and reforming the prison systems. Capitalism becomes corrupt when greed takes over. Believe it or not, of all people, Herbert Hoover actually believed in that notion. I can't quite remember his exact words, but it was similar to that.
 

ShamMol

Only Way Round is Through
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
1,988
Reaction score
10
Location
Pasadena, California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
flip2 said:
Oopsidoodle.

Are you talking about overcrowding? The length of incarcerations? Reform programs instituted in correctional facilities? Or just the very existence of having a prison system?

I worked for a telecommunications company in San Antonio, and my department handled direct billing of customers for collect calls to be allowed from prisons in most states. It is devastating at how correctional systems have become a profitable business at the expense of prisoners AND their families. Believe me, I should know. It's made me think about greed and reforming the prison systems. Capitalism becomes corrupt when greed takes over. Believe it or not, of all people, Herbert Hoover actually believed in that notion. I can't quite remember his exact words, but it was similar to that.
I think I was speaking to the nature of how the prison system has turned from being a place to be reformed into a citizen of character to a system of retribution. I feel that this is very evident in Texas, where there are so many drug offenders who would benefit in my opinion greatly from treatment rather than just locking them up. Forced time in a rehabilitation facility or detox facility imo is what is needed, not locking them in prison where they can get drugs thus perpetuating the problem.

I didn't know that about the taking advantage of families and prisoners, just adds another fold to the debate, but an interesting one at that. It has to do less with capitalism imo and more with the fact that so much of our government has become a privatizing agent when imo the government probably could do a much cheaper job of it. But that is capitalism and conservatism in the USA for you...
 

flip2

Active member
Joined
May 24, 2005
Messages
338
Reaction score
0
Location
Texan by Choice
I agree with you on the reform rather than retribution part. I ESPECIALLY agree with you regarding the drug abuser being in jail. There is another thread in "U.S. Politics" I believe that discusses "Illegal Drugs" or "Legalize Marijuana," I forget which one. Anyway, I posted in there that I believe there should be a reform of the judicial process in terms of narcotics and narcotics abuse, and therefore the correctional system in determining the placement of said individuals.

I 100% believe those guilty of simply being addicted should not go to jail, but to a rehabilitation center, and followed up by private community business involvement.

Anything can be turned into a business. Even prostitution. Look up "escorts" or "personal masseuse" in the classified sections. Always a way to around the system.
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,894
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Redcommie said:
Bush won, but he won by the smallest percentage of any incumbant president who won during wartime, and he only won by a few percentage points.
How many incumbent presidents won reelection during wartime? I can only think of 3 modern ones: Roosevelt, Johnson, and Nixon.

Having the smallest margin of victory out of 4 isn't exactly a big deal. He still....won.

Plus, the main thing Bush did was that he made the entire election a two issue vote (as many right-wing politicians often do). He made it about Religion & War (man those come together so often).
You have no idea what you're talking about.

Election 2004: Percent saying which was the most important thing to them:

Iraq/Terrorism: 34%
Taxes/Economy: 25%
Moral Issues: 22%
Health Care/Education: 12%

That doesn't seem like "Religion and War" to me. And considering we had just had the worst terrorist attack in our nations history, and were in the middle of a war, I think Iraq/Terrorism only getting 34% is surprisingly low.

Also, in almost all of the states that the Gay Marraige Ban bill came up, there was already a law banning gay marraige. What the bill did was motivate fundamentalist voters who wouldn't have voted anyway. By mobilizing the evangelical movement, the Republicans got a big monopoly on the christian vote.
The Republicans didn't "get" a monopoly on the Christian vote. The Republicans HAD a "monopoly" on the christian vote, if you want to call it that.

Here's some interesting facts for you that will blow your mind:

-Bush increased his share of the vote over 2000 by 1% among those who attended church more than weekly or weekly, 4% among those who attended monthly, 3% of those who attended almost never, and 4% among those who attended never. So he made bigger strides among the non-religious than among the religious.

-Bush increased his share of the vote over 2000 most among Jewish families (6%), then Catholics (5%, a huge swing considering he was against a Catholic candidate), THEN Protestants (3%). He also increased among atheists by 1%.

-Bush increased his share of the vote over 2000 most in the Northeast, then the South/West, and then the Midwest (4%, 3%, 3%, and 2%), thus ruining the theory of a further divided America

-Bush made HUGE strides in urban areas (13% gain over 2000 in big cities, 9% in small cities) while losing ground in small towns (9% loss under 2000)

-Bush improved by twice as much among non-gun owning families as he did among gun owning families (4% to 2%)

-Contrary to the claim that Bush tried to "scare" people into voting for him, those who said they were "Very worried" about terrorism supported Kerry 56-44 while "somewhat worried," "not very worried," and "not at all worried" all supported Bush.

One thing I always wondered about that though, W. is the only president to have a criminal record, and Laura is the only first lady to have ever killed someone (drunk driving incident). And yet christians rally around these people.
Again, you're horribly wrong.

a) Bush doesn't have a criminal record
b) Laura was NOT drunk, that's a lie. The accident report and every single shred of evidence proves otherwise.
c) You'd be surprised at the actions of some of our presidents. Jefferson raped his slaves, Jackson showed up to his inauguration drunk and was almost impeached for it, another President (I can't remember which) ran over and killed a woman with his carriage.

Let's take a look at Bill:

-The first U.S. president to be disbarred.
-The first elected president in U.S. history to be impeached-Dec. 19, 1998.
-The first U.S. president to be publicly accused of forcible rape-by Juanita Broaddrick. Feb. 24, 1999.
-The first president to be accused by multiple witnesses, including one under oath before a federal grand jury, of using cocaine while he was the chief law enforcement officer of his state.
-The first U.S. president to be accused of sexual assault on White House property-by Kathleen Willey, March 15, 1998.
-The first sitting president to be the subject of a sexual harassment suit-filed by Paula Jones. May 8, 1994.
-The first president to found guilty of a crime while still in office. (Leaking the private correspondence of Kathleen Willey in violation of the Privacy Act).

Want to play more games of firsts?
 

LazarusLong

New member
Joined
Jun 1, 2005
Messages
13
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Ok, let's clear up some of the responses to my statements about one party rule:

1. Polls change daily, that is why they take them all the time instead of once and then stop so they dont really mean that much over the long term. Second, the fact that Iraq and terrorism are listed together is proof of just how well Bush has been able to muddy the water. Iraq was not involved in 9/11 and Saddam was not involved with terrorist. He was a secular leader and the terrorist movement is a religious one. He knew that if he was part of the movement the first thing they would do is get rid of him. just ask the shaw of iran or the russian installed government in Kabul

2. The increase in the people who voted for Bush was caused by more people voting, not because of changed minds. And yes, they did try to scare people into voting republican. **** Chaney said that he was "Afraid of what will happen if the democrats get in power."

3. Do you think that republicans like Bush don't sin. Remember he was a drunk by his own admission and he admitted to using illegal drugs in a telephone call. Does this bother you?

4. Everything about Clinton listed stems from one thing: he had an extramarital affair. WOw that is terrible, it puts him in the same boat with about 50% of the rest of the population. Do you want someone who does a good job as president (and clinton did do a good job) but fooled around or do you want someone who is ruining the economy and killing thousands of people in Iraq but prays a lot.

5. Why do Republicans feel it necessary to demonize people they dont agree with. It is not enough to say I dont agree with clinton's policies, he must be evil. Why? Why does anyone who disagrees with bush have to be a godless evil person. what happened to the phrase honest people can agree to disagree.
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,894
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
LazarusLong said:
Ok, let's clear up some of the responses to my statements about one party rule:

1. Polls change daily, that is why they take them all the time instead of once and then stop so they dont really mean that much over the long term. Second, the fact that Iraq and terrorism are listed together is proof of just how well Bush has been able to muddy the water. Iraq was not involved in 9/11 and Saddam was not involved with terrorist. He was a secular leader and the terrorist movement is a religious one. He knew that if he was part of the movement the first thing they would do is get rid of him. just ask the shaw of iran or the russian installed government in Kabul
Okay, let's split Iraq and terrorism up. That makes his argument even weaker (if that's possible). Now the numbers are:

Economy/Taxes: 25%
Moral Values: 22%
Terrorism: 19%
Iraq: 15%
Health Care Education: 12%

Yea, that definately looks like it's only focused on religion and war....

And yes, polls change, but the argument that was made was that Bush won the election because he made it about those two things. This "poll" was the most comprehensive one taken in the past year, on election day, describing exactly why people voted the way they did.


2. The increase in the people who voted for Bush was caused by more people voting, not because of changed minds. And yes, they did try to scare people into voting republican. **** Chaney said that he was "Afraid of what will happen if the democrats get in power."
No, you're wrong. The increase in voting was in the SHARE of the vote, not total vote. As in Bush increased his percentage, as well as total number.

Everyone on the left claimed that if Bush was reelected the economy would tank, there's be a draft, we'd all lose our civil rights, and we'd invade 5 more countries. Fearmongering wasn't specifically a republican province.

3. Do you think that republicans like Bush don't sin. Remember he was a drunk by his own admission and he admitted to using illegal drugs in a telephone call. Does this bother you?
Of course he sins. Everyone does. I really couldn't give a flying feck if he did. Aside from the fact that he's no longer an alcoholic (beating it is something to be proud of anyways), am I bothered that he tried illegal drugs in his youth? No. So did Douglas H. Ginsburg, and that doesn't mean he wouldn't have been FAR better on the SC than Kennedy.

4. Everything about Clinton listed stems from one thing: he had an extramarital affair. WOw that is terrible, it puts him in the same boat with about 50% of the rest of the population. Do you want someone who does a good job as president (and clinton did do a good job) but fooled around or do you want someone who is ruining the economy and killing thousands of people in Iraq but prays a lot.
It all stems from that? Hmmm. Aside from the fact that it wasn't the affair, but his actions afterwards that were the problem, you'd prefer other reasons. Okay. What do these have to do with sexual harassment.

-The first U.S. president to approve the sale of sophisticated weapons technology to a hostile power while its emissaries contributed to his campaign.
-The first president to be accused by multiple witnesses, including one under oath before a federal grand jury, of using cocaine while he was the chief law enforcement officer of his state.
-The first sitting U.S. president to be named in a federal criminal referral as a possible witness to and beneficiary of fraudulent financial activity. (Whitewater)
-The first U.S. president to have two senior administration officials die violently under mysterious circumstances while they were being pressed for testimony on assorted White House scandals. (Vince Foster, Ron Brown)
-The first U.S. president to have a major cooperating federal witness against him die in prison while waiting to give prosecutors the testimony they later admitted would have led to first family indictments. (James McDougal)
-The first U.S. president to launch unprovoked missile attacks on two sovereign nations. (Sudan, Afghanistan-Aug. 20, 1998)

And also, 50% of people have probably not commited as many sexual deviances as that man, he did NOT do a good job as president, and how exactly did Bush ruin the economyZ

5. Why do Republicans feel it necessary to demonize people they dont agree with. It is not enough to say I dont agree with clinton's policies, he must be evil. Why? Why does anyone who disagrees with bush have to be a godless evil person. what happened to the phrase honest people can agree to disagree.
I don't think he's godless or evil. I just think he was a slimy, shady, douchebag.

If you want to talk about inappropriate how about the millions of people who call Bush Hitler? How about the fact that on the official Catholics For Kerry Website, they implied that Bush was in fact, the Antichrist? Never in history has there been a president who one party has treated with such violent disgust. I really don't see how you can say that it's the republicans who are labeling people unfairly.
 
Last edited:

flip2

Active member
Joined
May 24, 2005
Messages
338
Reaction score
0
Location
Texan by Choice
LazarusLong said:
Why does anyone who disagrees with bush have to be a godless evil person. what happened to the phrase honest people can agree to disagree.
Then let's be honest with the facts first.

2. The increase in the people who voted for Bush was caused by more people voting, not because of changed minds. And yes, they did try to scare people into voting republican. **** Chaney said that he was "Afraid of what will happen if the democrats get in power."
Partly true. More people did vote, and went to Bush. Recall the interesting Independent/Undecided/Latino Voting results. Again, historically, Independents and Undecided voters have always broke for the Challenger, and not the incumbent president. Why? Because usually a re-election bid is always about a referendum on how well or how bad a president did during his first term. This is the first election in which a majority of independents and undecided voters went for the sitting president. The Latino vote increased for the republicans to nearly splitting it with the democrats. I would say people did vote for Bush because of changed minds. And, quite frankly, VP Cheney was right, when you considered who his challengers were. Kerry doesn't exactly emode confidence and stability. John Edwards was there because the ladies thought he was cute. Gephardt would've been a far better choice for a running mate.

3. Do you think that republicans like Bush don't sin. Remember he was a drunk by his own admission and he admitted to using illegal drugs in a telephone call. Does this bother you?
If you believe that, then I've got some property in Brooklyn I'd like to sell to you. His expunged DWI record was never denied. He never said the words "I used cocaine, I smoked marijuana" in that phone conversation. But, the great thing about George W. Bush is that he admits to not being perfect, admits to having done youthful indiscretions, and moves on. He admits to wanting Jack Daniels moreso than his wife for a while, and that's why he stopped, changed his life around, and for the better. What bothers me is that people don't acknowledge someone's willingness to change his or her life around, with the help of friends, family, and faith. What bothers me is that some people will do anything that is politically expedient to create a mockery of one's flaws and imperfections.

4. Everything about Clinton listed stems from one thing: he had an extramarital affair. WOw that is terrible, it puts him in the same boat with about 50% of the rest of the population.
No. Lying under oath to a federal grand jury to protect one's behind is wrong. Doesn't matter what he was lying about. The fact that he obstructed justice and abused his power meant he should've done time, like any other average Joe in the country does. What's worse, he was the President of the United States. The leader of our nation making a mockery of the judicial system and the Constitution. He and Hillary's questionable involvement in a Savings & Loans deal, real estate venture, the unexplainable death of one of his top advisors, the top secret death of Ron Brown and ostracizing of Lonnie Gwenuire.

Do you want someone who does a good job as president (and clinton did do a good job) but fooled around or do you want someone who is ruining the economy and killing thousands of people in Iraq but prays a lot.
Again, the largest restructuring and expansion of the federal government in over 60 years because of the War on Terror. DHS created? Remember that? We're in the middle of a war? The United States is killing thousands of Iraqis? THOUSANDS? 100,000 Iraqis killed a year when Saddam Hussein ruled. During a war, it is inevitable that innocent people will be killed or wounded. Most of the deaths are a result of foreign insurgents and terrorists who do not want foreign forces, mostly American, in Iraq. Nor do these foreign insurgents and terrorists want Iraq to be a free, democratic nation. Bush passed the "NCLB Act," in which there has been more federal funding for education in this republican administration than Clinton ever committed to doing. Under this administration, there has been a real and more financially committed focus on HIV/AIDS on continental Africa and Indonesia. Even the gay community give praise to Bush, more praise they ever gave to Clinton, who has been heavily criticized from gay activists for only mentioning AIDS, but never doing anything about it, but show up in Africa and shaking hands at public events with gay men and women, reminding them that "I feel your pain." Granted, after the fact that he's out of office, Clinton is now focused on treating, preventing, and finding the cure for AIDS. There are more black, Hispanic, and Asian homeowners under 35 than during the Clinton administration. There are more small businesses popping up. I would suggest you check out sba.gov and navigate your way to finding stats and figures under this administration in comparison to the Clinton years. I could go on and on and on that this adminsitration has done better at doing than Clinton ever laid a finger on.
 

LazarusLong

New member
Joined
Jun 1, 2005
Messages
13
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Below is an e mail response
"Only 500 points" down on the Dow translates into billions of dollars. I don't consider billions of dollars "only". In addition, the NASDAQ was down a lot more than that, if my memory is correct it was about half what it was when Bush took office. The broader market outside of those two indexes was lower also. In short the stock market is still billions of dollars below what it was when Bush took office. The favorite political ploy of each new administration is to blame what ever goes wrong on the previous administration. But even if I concede your point about the market going down before he took office, here is the difference: Clinton readily adopted policies to help stop the slide. Bush adopted policies to make it worse. That tax cut and the resulting deficits have been a huge drag on the economy. The tax increase ON THE RICHEST AMERICANS that Clinton passed when he took office set the stage for the budget surpluses that came later. Note that the 1993 tax increase did not affect the middle class or the poor at all. Contrast that with Bushes tax cut. Over 80% of it went to the richest 10% of Americans. Do you think they needed a tax cut. Another way to look at it is this: Everyone says that the amereican economy is driven by consumer spending. Then doesnt it make more sense to funnel as much as possible to the people who actually drive the economy (IE middle class, poor). These are the people who will take those tax cuts out and spend them on things that will spur the economy and millions of people will reap a bigger benifit from the cuts and companies will have to hire more to meet the increased demand. No instead the vast majority of the money was funneled into a much smaller number of people who do not need it to increase their level of spending. By the way the idea that the rich will take that money and create jobs is a joke. Who is going to create a job for a product if noone is buying.

As for the unemployment figures, how many millions of jobs and human suffering does that "small" difference in the unemployment rate translate into? Bush is the first president in history to end his first term with fewer jobs available than when he went in. That is a great accomplishment. I do however exclude the start of the great depression

Regean was wrong. He perpetuated the myth that if you make the rich richer it will trickle down to everyone else. He started the huge budget deficits that will eventually destroy the american economy and communism fell because of the policies of Gorbachov and communisms own internal weaknesses and mismanagement that destroyed the Russian economy. To say that Regan caused the fall of Communism requires that you believe that the communist thought process went something like this: " Wow, america is spending a lot more on weapons and defense, we cant match their spending power so we might as well close up shop and go home." Is that likely? Even if we outspent them that would not require them to end communism, dont forget they still had enough nuclear bombs to destroy the world. Just like we do. IF a hardliner had come to power instead of Gorbachov, communism would most likely still be running eastern Europe. Even today Putin is moving to consolidate power. Democracy may be short lived in Russia. What will Bush do to prevent the fall of democracy in Russia?

Morally and legally justified to invade Iraq? If that is why we invaded, to free the Iraqi people from Saddam, why was that never said in the run up to war? It was all about wmd (that did not exist). When the weapons werent there Bush and company went looking for another reason for the war and this is the one that came up with. Bottom line is that Iraq was not a threat to the US and the administration knew it. It obvious in the way the administration presented its case. They used evidence they KNEW was wrong (centrefuge tubes that were not useable to make nuclear weapons and they knew that, buying yellow cake from africa which they knew did not happen, but in both cases continued to quote these as indications of wmd) Everytime he talked about iraq, he talked about 9/11 and terrorist, knowing full well that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 (something he admitted AFTER the war began)(you obviously have the same problem since you equate the war on terror with the war in Iraq, it was not Iraq that hit us on 9/11). Mobile germ warfare labs that did not exist. The decision was made to invade Iraq, THEN they went looking for a reason. But even if you dont beleive any of this one question remains, if we are going to go to war and people will die, shouldnt we be damn sure that we are right when we start a war (I have a problem with us starting the war, we were not attacked. I have the same problem with Grenada). Are we now going to invade any country that we feel does not meet OUR standards of moral treatment of its citizens? Are we going to now invade China or North Korea because of the way they treat their citizens. How about Darfur? There is genocide going on there and we are doing nothing to stop it. We invaded Iraq because we knew it would be an easy win (in general that makes us a bully), or we thought it would be and because the right wing nuts in control have always thought that Bush senior was wrong back in the first war for not going on to Bagdad and getting Saddam.

What is almost funny is this: Bush created an axis of evil, Iraq, Iran, and North Korea. So who did we go after? The one who had no nuclear program at all. Now because we are tied up in Iraq we cant address the real threats of Iran and North Korea.

One final thing. If you look at it logically, Saddam could not get involved with terrorists. The terrorist movement is based in religion. Saddam is a secular leader and the two dont mix. Saddam knows that supporting the terrorist would eventually spell his downfall because the terrorists would want to install a government controlled by the mullahs. It happened in Afganistan and in Iran. "Democracy" in Afganistan and Iraq will last only as long as the US military is there to inforce it.

Democrats do not look down on people of faith. Believe it or not many democrats are people of faith themselves. But we also recognize that not all people are Christian. We should not be in the business of forcing others to follow Christian tenets. But no matter how much faith democrats have or don't have, history has shown that a theocracy is a poor form of government and that is where we are headed. Just look at what congress has done to impress the religious right in the past few months. Bill Frist has done everything but burn a cross on his forehead.

I do ask myself one question over and over. Whatever happened to the concept of "good people can agree to disagree". Nowadays if you disagree with Bush you are not only wrong you are evil and in league with Satan. It is the same thing with clinton. they could not just disagree with his policies, he had to be evil and was constantly demonized. Preachers (including pat robertson cause i heard him say it) tell people that voting for a democrat is a sure ticket to hell. do you really see nothing wrong with deficits that add a TRILLION dollars to the debt every other year? Do you see nothing wrong with over a thousand americans dying in a war that should never have been started? is there nothing wrong with changing the bankruptcy laws in such a way that if you are poor or middle class taking bankruptcy will cripple you for the rest of your life while insuring a safety net for the rich to take bankruptcy and rewarding the banks and credit card companies for their irresponsible lending practices?
Doesnt the hypocrisy of the terri shiavo incident bother you? Bush talks about a culture of life and when governor of texas he signs a law to make it easier to pull the plug on patients who cannot pay. it goes on and on. I guess my bottom line question isthis: Is there no sleazy act or lie that the republican party can commit that the religious right is not willing to turn a blind eye to?
 

LazarusLong

New member
Joined
Jun 1, 2005
Messages
13
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The point of the statement was to show that Iraq and terrorism had been erronously linked, breaking them out now is a little late. Note that 22% listed moral values. When you link that with the false threat of Iraq, that is over a third of the population. Exit polls on election day showed Kerry winning. The republican response to that was "well, people didnt tell the pollsters the truth about what they did in the voting booth." Bottom line polls dont mean a lot and are subject to manipulation and a lot is determined by how the question is asked.


Everyone on the left claimed that if Bush was reelected the economy would tank said:
What is your point? Most of those claims still apply. It takes a while to ruin an economy as big as ours but it is getting there and if necessary I can list a lot of the conditions that are leading down that path. I wont do it now because it would be quite lengthy. if you want the full deal send me an email and i will be happy to fill it out.
There is a back door draft now. Extended tours in Iraq. Calling up the ready reserve. Telling reservists in the US whose term is almost up that if they dont re enlist they will be shipped out to Iraq now before their current hitch is up. Again, the list goes on and on. As for civil rights , you obviously have not read the patriot act. Even congress is now saying that they were a little to quick to pass that thing and want to change it. Of course, the administration wants to keep it as is. But no, you are right we wont be invading any more countries because we can't. Iraq has stretched us to the limit, even the military admits it. recruiting is way off and people are not joining up to replace those that are killed and maimed. Too bad, Iran and North Korea are turning into a real problem and both know there is not a lot we can do about it.



Of course he sins. Everyone does. I really couldn't give a flying feck if he did. Aside from the fact that he's no longer an alcoholic (beating it is something to be proud of anyways) said:
What I like about republicans is that when they do get caught with their hands in the cookie jar they always say the same thing. "So what, the democrats did it too (or did it first)." I guess that makes it ok, the old two wrongs making it a right principle(what happened to the famous republican moral superiority). And you seem very forgiving of Bush's use of illegal drugs. The point is it was against the law. Why are you so willing to forgive Bush's lapses on obeying the law but won't extend the same kindness to Clinton


And also said:
So much for being objective and sticking to facts.
 
Last edited:

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,894
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
This is really getting ridiculous. As soon as someone refutes one of your talking points, you spout 10 more without addressing the others.

LazarusLong said:
Below is an e mail response
"Only 500 points" down on the Dow translates into billions of dollars. I don't consider billions of dollars "only". In addition, the NASDAQ was down a lot more than that, if my memory is correct it was about half what it was when Bush took office. The broader market outside of those two indexes was lower also. In short the stock market is still billions of dollars below what it was when Bush took office. The favorite political ploy of each new administration is to blame what ever goes wrong on the previous administration. But even if I concede your point about the market going down before he took office, here is the difference: Clinton readily adopted policies to help stop the slide. Bush adopted policies to make it worse. That tax cut and the resulting deficits have been a huge drag on the economy. The tax increase ON THE RICHEST AMERICANS that Clinton passed when he took office set the stage for the budget surpluses that came later. Note that the 1993 tax increase did not affect the middle class or the poor at all. Contrast that with Bushes tax cut. Over 80% of it went to the richest 10% of Americans. Do you think they needed a tax cut. Another way to look at it is this: Everyone says that the amereican economy is driven by consumer spending. Then doesnt it make more sense to funnel as much as possible to the people who actually drive the economy (IE middle class, poor). These are the people who will take those tax cuts out and spend them on things that will spur the economy and millions of people will reap a bigger benifit from the cuts and companies will have to hire more to meet the increased demand. No instead the vast majority of the money was funneled into a much smaller number of people who do not need it to increase their level of spending. By the way the idea that the rich will take that money and create jobs is a joke. Who is going to create a job for a product if noone is buying.
If you look at a long term chart for the Dow or Nasdaq, you see a steady increase, a sharp, unexplainable increase during the early 90's, and then both markets settle back into where they should have been and continue their increases. The cause of that jump? The dot com bubble, which had nothing to do with Clinton or Bush. The cause of that decrease? The dot com burst, which had nothing to do with Clinton or Bush. The reason the stock market is continuing up? Market forces. Has nothing to do with Clinton or Bush.

Your information about the taxcuts is a bit disingenuous, as the reason 80% went to the top 10% is because they pay MORE than 80% of all taxes. It was a progressive tax cut. If the dems would stop trying to perpetrate class warfare, they might get somewhere.

As for the unemployment figures, how many millions of jobs and human suffering does that "small" difference in the unemployment rate translate into? Bush is the first president in history to end his first term with fewer jobs available than when he went in. That is a great accomplishment. I do however exclude the start of the great depression
Again, you're completely wrong. Rather than repeat what moveon.org tells you, why don't you do some research yourself. How about going to www.bls.gov, and telling me what the actual payroll figures were.

January 2001, when Bush took office: Total Non-farm employment - 132,454,000
January 2005, end of his first term: Total Non-farm employment - 132,573,000

So that would appear to be a 119,000 job gain, wouldn't it? Not too bad considering the 2.5 trillion dollar economic cost of 9/11 and the declining economy Clinton left him.

But wait! The left conveniently forgets a few things. The payroll survey only counts one thing: Payrolls. It doesn't count self-employed people, so anytime anyone decides to start their own business, it counts as a "job lost." It also counts a job twice if a person changes a job in 12 months. This leads to inflation of jobs in high turnover times, such as the late 90's and early 00's.

So do we accurately measure employment in a society where so many people are becoming self employed? We use the Household Survey, which is a more accurate indicator of long term trends in the workplace.

January 2001 Non-farm employment -130,248,000
January 2005 Non-farm employment -132,620,000

Huh! So, actually, 2.4 million jobs were CREATED under Bush. A bit different from the 2.7 million jobs LOST Kerry was claiming, wasn't it?

Amazing what a little of your own research will do for you.


Morally and legally justified to invade Iraq? If that is why we invaded, to free the Iraqi people from Saddam, why was that never said in the run up to war?
Why was that never said? You've got to be ******** me.

Bush talked PLENTY about freeing the Iraqi people, so much so infact, that the NYT editors and EJ Dionne both CRITICIZED him for not "focusing on the real reason for war"

http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=14432
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/27/opinion/27wed1.html?

Hypocricy at worst, revisionist history at best.

Directly from SOTU:

The current Iraqi regime has shown the power of tyranny to spread discord and violence in the Middle East. A liberated Iraq can show the power of freedom to transform that vital region, by bringing hope and progress into the lives of millions. America's interests in security, and America's belief in liberty, both lead in the same direction: to a free and peaceful Iraq. (Applause.)

The first to benefit from a free Iraq would be the Iraqi people, themselves. Today they live in scarcity and fear, under a dictator who has brought them nothing but war, and misery, and torture. Their lives and their freedom matter little to Saddam Hussein -- but Iraqi lives and freedom matter greatly to us. (Applause.)

Bringing stability and unity to a free Iraq will not be easy. Yet that is no excuse to leave the Iraqi regime's torture chambers and poison labs in operation. Any future the Iraqi people choose for themselves will be better than the nightmare world that Saddam Hussein has chosen for them. (Applause.)
Sure sounds to ME like he's talking about freeing the Iraqis! Want more examples, I've got about 25 of them....


It was all about wmd (that did not exist). When the weapons werent there Bush and company went looking for another reason for the war and this is the one that came up with.
Again, you're completely wrong.

One final thing. If you look at it logically, Saddam could not get involved with terrorists. The terrorist movement is based in religion. Saddam is a secular leader and the two dont mix. Saddam knows that supporting the terrorist would eventually spell his downfall because the terrorists would want to install a government controlled by the mullahs. It happened in Afganistan and in Iran. "Democracy" in Afganistan and Iraq will last only as long as the US military is there to inforce it.
Right. Because Syria isn't a terrorist regime. Aghhhh my brain hurts...

Democrats do not look down on people of faith. Believe it or not many democrats are people of faith themselves. But we also recognize that not all people are Christian. We should not be in the business of forcing others to follow Christian tenets. But no matter how much faith democrats have or don't have, history has shown that a theocracy is a poor form of government and that is where we are headed. Just look at what congress has done to impress the religious right in the past few months. Bill Frist has done everything but burn a cross on his forehead.
Any more talking points that completely disregard logic and truth?

I do ask myself one question over and over. Whatever happened to the concept of "good people can agree to disagree". Nowadays if you disagree with Bush you are not only wrong you are evil and in league with Satan. It is the same thing with clinton. they could not just disagree with his policies, he had to be evil and was constantly demonized. Preachers (including pat robertson cause i heard him say it) tell people that voting for a democrat is a sure ticket to hell.
And southern baptist preachers have been saying that about the reps for decades.

do you really see nothing wrong with deficits that add a TRILLION dollars to the debt every other year? Do you see nothing wrong with over a thousand americans dying in a war that should never have been started? is there nothing wrong with changing the bankruptcy laws in such a way that if you are poor or middle class taking bankruptcy will cripple you for the rest of your life while insuring a safety net for the rich to take bankruptcy and rewarding the banks and credit card companies for their irresponsible lending practices?
The thing im most bothered with now is our education system if it keeps producing people who just regurgitate claims without knowing anything about backing them up.


Doesnt the hypocrisy of the terri shiavo incident bother you? Bush talks about a culture of life and when governor of texas he signs a law to make it easier to pull the plug on patients who cannot pay. it goes on and on. I guess my bottom line question isthis: Is there no sleazy act or lie that the republican party can commit that the religious right is not willing to turn a blind eye to?
Again, you have no idea what you're talking about. The law bush signed was regarding COMPLETELY different situations. It's apples and oranges. Please, please, please inform yourself.
 

LazarusLong

New member
Joined
Jun 1, 2005
Messages
13
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
In reviewing the responses to my orginal posting I find something very interesting. I made some arguably contraversial statements about the southern vote and the future of the democrat party where the presidency is concerned and with only , I think, one exception all replies were simply a defense of Bush. anything else was ignored. The real conclusion of the post was about the democrat party future and really had nothing to do with Bush and that was ignored. It is like nothing else matters except defending Bush, right and wrong do not enter into the equation.
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,894
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
LazarusLong said:
The point of the statement was to show that Iraq and terrorism had been erronously linked, breaking them out now is a little late. Note that 22% listed moral values. When you link that with the false threat of Iraq, that is over a third of the population. Exit polls on election day showed Kerry winning. The republican response to that was "well, people didnt tell the pollsters the truth about what they did in the voting booth." Bottom line polls dont mean a lot and are subject to manipulation and a lot is determined by how the question is asked.
First off, this is not a poll, or the exit polls that were wrong, it's the National Voter Survey, conducted after each election, and it's among the largest and most accurate surveys conducted each year.

Also, I won't go into the myth of "moral values" being the deciding factor because it takes far too long. If you like, I'll send you a paper I wrote on the topic.


What is your point? Most of those claims still apply. It takes a while to ruin an economy as big as ours but it is getting there and if necessary I can list a lot of the conditions that are leading down that path. I wont do it now because it would be quite lengthy. if you want the full deal send me an email and i will be happy to fill it out.
There is a back door draft now. Extended tours in Iraq. Calling up the ready reserve. Telling reservists in the US whose term is almost up that if they dont re enlist they will be shipped out to Iraq now before their current hitch is up. Again, the list goes on and on. As for civil rights , you obviously have not read the patriot act. Even congress is now saying that they were a little to quick to pass that thing and want to change it. Of course, the administration wants to keep it as is. But no, you are right we wont be invading any more countries because we can't. Iraq has stretched us to the limit, even the military admits it. recruiting is way off and people are not joining up to replace those that are killed and maimed. Too bad, Iran and North Korea are turning into a real problem and both know there is not a lot we can do about it.
Right. The economy is tanking. Okay. Despite the vast majority of economic indicators implying the contrary.
The "back door draft" is a lot different than what Kerry was shouting about.

And please, please, tell me what civil rights of yours were impugned on by the Patriot Act? Do you know anyone? At all? The Patriot Act is the biggest scapegoat the left can find.

Did you really think we were going to invade Iran? I don't think anyone ever thought we would have done that anyways. It's 3X bigger than Iraq, and is mountaneous rather than flat desert. As for NK, we weren't going to invade them anyways either. Now Syria.....

What I like about republicans is that when they do get caught with their hands in the cookie jar they always say the same thing. "So what, the democrats did it too (or did it first)." I guess that makes it ok, the old two wrongs making it a right principle(what happened to the famous republican moral superiority). And you seem very forgiving of Bush's use of illegal drugs. The point is it was against the law. Why are you so willing to forgive Bush's lapses on obeying the law but won't extend the same kindness to Clinton
What makes me so quick to "forgive" George?

1) When George broke the law, he was just a regular citizen. When Clinton broke the law, he was the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.
2) Clinton blazed too when he was in college, he's admitted it. Like I said before, I wouldn't ever criticize someone for that. I couldn't give a ****, and I dont think it has any impact on leadership ability.
3) George's improprieties were personal - nobody was hurt but him. Clinton molested multiple women, and embarrassed a nation
4) George took action to cure his flaws, and has been clean for decades. Clinton pretended it never happened, and refused to get help.

What I like about democrats is that they have an uncanny ability to blind themself to certain truths, such as that the two cases are apples and oranges.

So much for being objective and sticking to facts.
You're going to snipe at me about facts? I've countered more of your baseless claims that I can count on this thread. Got any more "facts" you want to shout at me?
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,894
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
LazarusLong said:
In reviewing the responses to my orginal posting I find something very interesting. I made some arguably contraversial statements about the southern vote and the future of the democrat party where the presidency is concerned and with only , I think, one exception all replies were simply a defense of Bush. anything else was ignored. The real conclusion of the post was about the democrat party future and really had nothing to do with Bush and that was ignored. It is like nothing else matters except defending Bush, right and wrong do not enter into the equation.
If you make an argument "If X, then Y" where X turns out to be completely invalid, then why waste time on disproving Y? After all of your original assertions proved to be lies, there was no reason to deal with the rest of the thread.

Obviously right and wrong don't matter, otherwise you would have been embarrassed to post such a laundry list of lies in the first place.
 

LazarusLong

New member
Joined
Jun 1, 2005
Messages
13
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Well, since you have decided reduce the debate to name calling and insults (typical of the right wing) this will be my last post on the subject. Mark Twain said that there are three kinds of lies: there are lies, there are damn lies and then there are statistics. Just make sure you pick the ones that support your position, no matter how inaccurate or distorted they may be. (And I am well aware that I also quoted statistics so you can consider this statement as me arguing with myself) However, there are two facts that are impossible to hide from. We are once again in a war with no end in sight. We have a budget deficit that is out of control and if you think that we can continue with these huge deficits forever with no ill effects you are living in a dream world.
 

flip2

Active member
Joined
May 24, 2005
Messages
338
Reaction score
0
Location
Texan by Choice
I love it. Logic and reasoning don't apply, apparently.

Well, there is an end in sight to the Iraqi involvement of the War on Terror--when the Iraqi people are able to stand and defend themselves without full-time American assistance. They are half-way there, having completed its first democratic election, establishing a ruling body, and a permanent consitution on its way to fruition.

Of course this deficit will not continue. Of course there will be ill-effects for as long as there is one. There will still be down-trodden men and women even when there is a surplus. Have some common sense, man.

Regarding the southern vote, or any other type of vote, politics is always changing. But to imply or explicity state southerners are racists and that's why they vote republican....Again, I ask why is there a democrat senator from Florida? Why is there a democrat governor of South Carolina? Why is there a democrat governor of Virginia? Why are there two democrat senators representing Arkansas? Again, these are states that vote heavily republican for presidents or have been in recent times. Why then do these southern voters, implied by you as being racist, religiously fanatic, right wing nuts continue to vote for these democrats? These democrat officials will never be accused of "wearing their religion on their sleeves." Your logic seems to turn off when you look at the obvious facts at hand.
 
Top Bottom