After months of selling the war on Iraq as justified because of 9-11, W. last week declared "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in September the 11th."

So, Georgie - you are admitting that you lied, correct?

In March you said this: "The use of armed force against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."

During his re-appointment photo-op on the USS Lincoln, he said ""The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on Sept. 11, 2001. . . . The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We've removed an ally of Al Qaeda. . . . Our war against terror is proceeding according to the principles that I have made clear to all: Any person involved in committing or planning terrorist attacks against the American people becomes an enemy of this country and a target of American justice."


Your Defense Puppet in Chief, Rummy, on three separate occasions, declared:

September 2002: Rumsfeld said he had five or six sentences of "bulletproof" evidence that "demonstrate that there are in fact Al Qaeda in Iraq."

When a reporter asked if there are linkages between Al Qaeda and Iraq, Rumsfeld answered, "Yes." Asked "Is there any intelligence that Saddam Hussein has any ties to Sept. 11?" Rumsfeld left the question wide open, saying, "you have to recognize that the evidence piles up."

Asked to name senior Al Qaeda members who were in Baghdad, Rumsfeld said, "I could, but I won't."

In that same month, Rice said that while Saddam was not being accused of directly planning 9/11, "there are clearly links between Iraq and terrorism. . . . Links to terrorism would include Al Qaeda."



Isn't about time that all Americans wake up and realize that Bush and his cronies LIED TO US - he needs to be IMPEACHED.

As much as I agree with much you say, Jon, I have to say you're way off base on this one. Not once did anyone say that we attacked Iraq because of Saddam's involvement in 9/11.

What we did say is that Iraq has, in the past 10 years, given support to the same group of terrorists responsible for 9/11, and that was our justification. And rightly so, I might add. I may not like Bush, and I hate all our soldiers dying in these cowardly attacks by militants, but I wholeheartedly supported the war.

The war with Iraq was not about 9/11, it was about the war on Terrorism, which began when 9/11 occured.

Unfortunately, out of all of Bush's people, the one I dislike the most is Donald Rumsfeld, who pulled no punches in nearly instigating mass panic with all his voiced threats of terrorist attacks.

Excellent post, Chap.

Direct link or not, Iraq has been a huge sponsor of terrorism worldwide, and most people were for this war.

And never was the sole reason for going to war some obscure link to the terrorists in Afghanistan.

Iraq was in violation of a recent UN Resolution (as well as many previous Resolutions) which called for a reaction of force. When the rest of the UN cowered, we picked up the slack and dethroned Saddam.

Those opposed to it have for the most part shut their mouths since it began, unless they're out to draw attention on themselves, or put Bush in a bad light.

Once our men and women are in the battlefield, the semantics should be set aside, and support for the troops should be our top priority. Petty squabbling does them no good.

Here's to our troops! :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

Originally posted by Brian in Mesa

Direct link or not, Iraq has been a huge sponsor of terrorism worldwide, and most people were for this war.


Prove it - what terrorism did Iraq sponser in the last say, 4 years?


And never was the sole reason for going to war some obscure link to the terrorists in Afghanistan.

No, it wasn't the sole, but a major one. Bush and company linked Saddam with the fight against al-Queda, and 9/11. This is the reason America supported the war.


Iraq was in violation of a recent UN Resolution (as well as many previous Resolutions) which called for a reaction of force. When the rest of the UN cowered, we picked up the slack and dethroned Saddam.

Actually, at the time of the war, it now appears Iraq was IN COMPLIANCE with the UN resolution. And the resolution did not specify a response. The U. S. violated the UN charter with the pre-emptive war. And, if being in violation of a UN resolution is cause for War, there are about 80 UN resolutions that are being currently violated, mostly by U.S. allies (Israel, Turkey, Morocco).


Those opposed to it have for the most part shut their mouths since it began, unless they're out to draw attention on themselves, or put Bush in a bad light.

Once our men and women are in the battlefield, the semantics should be set aside, and support for the troops should be our top priority. Petty squabbling does them no good.

So, we are supposed to just shut up, not question the President, let him run roughshod over Democracy, make a fool out of the U.S? Bush puts himself in a bad light, and an AMERICAN should call that to attention.

And the troops are not being supported by the White House. Conditions are miserable, and no help is in sight. The Rumsfeld policy of outsourcing support to his private industry cronies has left the soldiers short of essential items.


Here's to our troops! :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

I agree = support our troops - but blind patriotism does not help anyone.

I think that D-back's point is that those prior statements were darn misleading AND are part of additional misleading information we were given to justify this war. A government misleading its people with misinformation to justify sending people to die in a foreign land is a bad thing in my book.

Originally posted by Dback Jon
I agree = support our troops - but blind patriotism does not help anyone.

Why weren't you bitching when Clinton bombed Baghdad and went after Saddam?

Your partisanship in these matters is sickening.

Clinton = good. Bush = bad. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Brian in Mesa

Your partisanship in these matters is sickening.

Clinton = good. Bush = bad. :rolleyes:

And yours isn't? You are Bush = saint, Clinton = the devil.
Bush and company has lied and misled the public on multiple issues - the EPA report on 9/11 toxic fumes, EPA report on global warming, civil liberties and the (un)patriot(ic) act, ANWR drilling, the economy, energy policy. Open your eyes and see what evil this despot and his cronies are doing to ruin this great country.

Originally posted by Dback Jon
And yours isn't? You are Bush = saint, Clinton = the devil.
Bush and company has lied and misled the public on multiple issues - the EPA report on 9/11 toxic fumes, EPA report on global warming, civil liberties and the (un)patriot(ic) act, ANWR drilling, the economy, energy policy. Open your eyes and see what evil this despot and his cronies are doing to ruin this great country.

Whoa, whoa, whoa, this is getting out of hand, once again.

Jon, you didn't even respond to my post. As I am consistently on your end of the political spectrum, I hope you understand where I am coming from.

And I believe there were several problems with nuclear inspections, which Saddam banned a few years ago, in violation of UN resolutions.

Originally posted by Dback Jon
And yours isn't? You are Bush = saint, Clinton = the devil.
Bush and company has lied and misled the public on multiple issues - the EPA report on 9/11 toxic fumes, EPA report on global warming, civil liberties and the (un)patriot(ic) act, ANWR drilling, the economy, energy policy. Open your eyes and see what evil this despot and his cronies are doing to ruin this great country.

I've never said Bush was a saint, or Clinton was the devil.

I personally do not believe the office of President, held by either Party, is as powerful as you apparently do. To me, the President is more of a figurehead.

BTW: Rip the Patriot Act all you want, but would you rather we just sit on our hands as a Country and wait for the next 9-11?

Originally posted by Brian in Mesa
I've never said Bush was a saint, or Clinton was the devil.

I personally do not believe the office of President, held by either Party, is as powerful as you apparently do. To me, the President is more of a figurehead.

BTW: Rip the Patriot Act all you want, but would you rather we just sit on our hands as a Country and wait for the next 9-11?

The President is very powerful - tons of regulatory actions are done by his appointees. He appoints judges, etc.

Of course I don't want us to sit on our hands and do nothing. But I also want us to respect our liberties and freedoms.

Originally posted by Chaplin
As much as I agree with much you say, Jon, I have to say you're way off base on this one. Not once did anyone say that we attacked Iraq because of Saddam's involvement in 9/11.


As I said in my reply to BIM, It was a major justification for the war. The memory of 9/11 was constantly invoked.


What we did say is that Iraq has, in the past 10 years, given support to the same group of terrorists responsible for 9/11, and that was our justification. And rightly so, I might add. I may not like Bush, and I hate all our soldiers dying in these cowardly attacks by militants, but I wholeheartedly supported the war.

Iraq has not given support to Al-queda - that has never been shown to be reality - even Bush's cronies are now denying that link. Iraq had nothing to do with Al-Queda, or 9/11.


The war with Iraq was not about 9/11, it was about the war on Terrorism, which began when 9/11 occured.

Again Chaplin, Iraq was no threat to the U.S., and was no friend of Al-Queda


Unfortunately, out of all of Bush's people, the one I dislike the most is Donald Rumsfeld, who pulled no punches in nearly instigating mass panic with all his voiced threats of terrorist attacks.

Him, Ashcroft, Rove and Wolfowitz - the unholy quartet!

Originally posted by Chaplin
Whoa, whoa, whoa, this is getting out of hand, once again.

Jon, you didn't even respond to my post. As I am consistently on your end of the political spectrum, I hope you understand where I am coming from.

And I believe there were several problems with nuclear inspections, which Saddam banned a few years ago, in violation of UN resolutions.

Chaplin - I felt I covered your post in my response to BIM - but I responded to yours as well.

Originally posted by Dback Jon

Again Chaplin, Iraq was no threat to the U.S., and was no friend of Al-Queda



Wow, sorry, Jon, but that is amazing. I'm speechless.

Originally posted by Chaplin
Wow, sorry, Jon, but that is amazing. I'm speechless.

So, how was Iraq an immediate threat to the U.S.?
Show me the Iraq-al Queda links

Originally posted by Dback Jon
Prove it - what terrorism did Iraq sponser in the last say, 4 years?

Besides the acts of terrorism carried out by Saddam and his sons on their own people...

There have been many traditional terrorist groups in Iraq such as Ansar al-Islam. That organization, linked to Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda, operated a huge training camp in northern Iraq until invading U.S. forces, teamed with Kurdish rebels, destroyed the compound early in the war.

After 9/11, the President stated clearly that we were going after terrorists and those countries that allowed them within their borders. Iraq has been a haven for terrorists for years and years.

Originally posted by Brian in Mesa
Besides the acts of terrorism carried out by Saddam and his sons on their own people...

If that is your definition, then why did Reagan/Bush I support Saddam when he was doing his worst acts to his own people? And if that is your definition, then why don't we invade half the countries on this planet. What Saddam did to his own people was never a justification for the war.

There have been many traditional terrorist groups in Iraq such as Ansar al-Islam. That organization, linked to Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda, operated a huge training camp in northern Iraq until invading U.S. forces, teamed with Kurdish rebels, destroyed the compound early in the war.

Major problem with your spin - the Ansar al-Islam camp operated out of U.S. supported and protected Kurdish territory - where Saddam had little influence. If anything, U.S. and British planes enforcing the no-fly zones protected the camp (not that they knew it was there).


After 9/11, the President stated clearly that we were going after terrorists and those countries that allowed them within their borders. Iraq has been a haven for terrorists for years and years.

Saudi Arabia is more of a threat and haven for terrorists than Iraq - financially as well as supplying the men and areas.

Don't you get sick of Bush- bashing Jon?

I love to bash Clinton, but there comes a point when too much is too much.

To this topic- I have two things to say:

1. We have not had a terrorist attack on the United States soil since 9-11 2001. Say what you will about Bush, Rummy, Ashcroft, Ridge, Rice, etc, but they have protected the people of the United States (including you) from a terrorist attack.

2. Bush never said Iraq was an imminent threat. He said that we can not wait untill they become one. They were in violation of all kinds of resolution from the past decade. Saddam tortured his people, killed thousands, committed all kinds of attrocities.
World is a better place without him. Instead of having an enemy in Iraq, soon we will have an ally.

That's all I have to say about that.
:)

Originally posted by Brian in Mesa

BTW: Rip the Patriot Act all you want, but would you rather we just sit on our hands as a Country and wait for the next 9-11?


Hmmmm over 200 years and no foreign interested terror acts on our soil, and yet after the first one, now we as a society must give up mucho civil liberties? Its overkill. Our government used 9/11 and the panic associated with it to take away many privacy rights.

They enacted it as a cover for their lack of proper intelligence communication in the montsh leading to 9/11 and are using it to placate a population calling for justice.

Its sad to me how quickly a citizenry is willing to let go rights I hold precious in the name of some un-quantifiable amount of security.

As a side, why didnt the FBI and CIA and our government enact all these outrageous policies after Oklahoma City?

You should ask the previous administration.

Originally posted by SirStefan32
Don't you get sick of Bush- bashing Jon?

I love to bash Clinton, but there comes a point when too much is too much.

To this topic- I have two things to say:

1. We have not had a terrorist attack on the United States soil since 9-11 2001. Say what you will about Bush, Rummy, Ashcroft, Ridge, Rice, etc, but they have protected the people of the United States (including you) from a terrorist attack.




Im not Bush Bashing, I swear. Im half playing Devils Advocate, and half honestly curious on your position.

Sure we havent had a terorist attack here since 9/11, but to say that this admin is protesting us is interesting. if they were protecting us properly, why did 9/11 happen at all?

I know this will open a HUGE can of worms, and I'm not doing this to start trouble. LEts just discuss this point, civilly please.

People say the Patriot Act is a necessary evil. People say that our Administration is protecting us in the aftermath of 9/11. DO you guys really think that another attack would have occurred by now if there was no Patriot Act? I would aruge that we as a country would have naturally increased our security, and prevented it. Instead of our intelligence agencies admitting some screw up and fixing the problem, they admitted nothing, amde the public to believe they did everything possible to prevent the attack, and since that didnt work, convinced everyone that we needed additional security measures taken, in the form of removal of prviacy rights and civil liberties in order to prevent it from happening again. Its certainly only my opinion, but I think we got hosed. And I think the CIA and FBI adn in turn the office of the Attorney General need to step up and admit they dropped the ball on 9/11. Not use as a cover for enacting more liberty stripping laws.

Originally posted by SirStefan32
You should ask the previous administration.

Weird, since the Oklahoma City Bombing, no idiot redneck racist piece of crap has blwon up any buildings in the USA. And it's not happened without having a bunch of BS libery losing laws enacted.

Once again your little anti-clinton one liner has proven only to help prove my point. Thanks.

EDIT: Not to mention the fact that you have conveniently ignored the real point of my post, which was to refute the necessity of the Patriot Act. You blew it of completely to take a perceived pot shot at Clinton, one that proved only useful to me in making my point, and you expect me to take your opinion seriously? Address the issues, Stefan.

Wait a minute here.

How can you predict that islamic psychopaths are going to hijack planes and crash them into buildings? That has never happened before.

Previous administration dropped the ball on Bin Laden. Blaming John Aschroft for 9-11 is outrageous. What was he supposed to do?

Listen man, I am not crazy about Patriot Act either. You know that some of my main political beliefs are that of a limited government and personal freedom (along with traditional values.)

I don't know if we would have had another terrorist attack if the administration didn't pass the patriot act. I am not willing to take that chance. Are you?

Dude, I can only adress one post at the time. While I was adressing your first post, you posted another one. Of course I didn't answer it because I didn't know it was there.

Clinton let Bin Laden go. Foreign governemtn had him arrested and called Clinton to ask him when he would like to take him. He refused to take him.

What point does this prove? It proves my point that liberals are not capable of defending and protecting us.

Originally posted by SirStefan32
Wait a minute here.

How can you predict that islamic psychopaths are going to hijack planes and crash them into buildings? That has never happened before.

Previous administration dropped the ball on Bin Laden. Blaming John Aschroft for 9-11 is outrageous. What was he supposed to do?

Listen man, I am not crazy about Patriot Act either. You know that some of my main political beliefs are that of a limited government and personal freedom (along with traditional values.)

I don't know if we would have had another terrorist attack if the administration didn't pass the patriot act. I am not willing to take that chance. Are you?

How can it be predicted? Through a reasonable amount of communication between intelligence agencies. Have you not read anything about the reports from AZ offices that Islamic men were enrolling in flight schools and such? The report that was ignored by other chapers of the same organization and would have helped the intelligence community prepare? Are you aware that before 9/11 the FBi and CIA werent allowed to share intelligence info? There were several breakdowns that helped cause 9/11. Im not blaming Rumsfeld for them happening. Im blaming him for using their happening as a vehicle to force overly big brother like laws on our citizenry.

You made a blanket statement that our current administration is protecting us since 9/11. Why can't one assume with the known breakdowns in communication that maybe they didnt do everythig they could have before it?

Complacency helped cause 9/11 Extreme swings in the opposite direction dontnecessarily prevent it from happening again.

Am I willing to take the chance? Based on everything Ive seen, yes. I think the Patriot Act is Un-American.

Originally posted by SirStefan32

Clinton let Bin Laden go. Foreign governemtn had him arrested and called Clinton to ask him when he would like to take him. He refused to take him.



That is an out and out lie Stefan - what government arrested him? And when?

Clinton went hard after Bin Laden - and almost got him twice.

Bush has had two years, billions of dollars, tens of thousands of troops and hundreds of lives lost, and still hasn't gotten Bin Laden, or any of the Taliban leadership.

Originally posted by SirStefan32
Dude, I can only adress one post at the time. While I was adressing your first post, you posted another one. Of course I didn't answer it because I didn't know it was there.

Clinton let Bin Laden go. Foreign governemtn had him arrested and called Clinton to ask him when he would like to take him. He refused to take him.

What point does this prove? It proves my point that liberals are not capable of defending and protecting us.

Heh. Heh Heh. Ha. HA. HAHAHA. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Seriously? More blanket rhetoric. All it proves is Clinton made a bad call. It proves Liberals can't protect us? A complete joke. Lets see. ..

I vaguely remember reading how JFK protected us from all out Nuclear War, the last time a foreign ememy encroached on US space. Weird. He was a filandering womanizer, too. I guess you can be liberal and a bad husband, yet still protect your citizenry.

Youre statements mean nothing Stefan. You might make a good politician one day though. They are also good at Shakespeare. "...full of sound and fury, signifying NOTHING."

Congratulations, you've read Macbeth! Me too.

However, my statement does mean something. It means that we can not trust Clintonesque politicians to protect us from terrorism, and we can not trust them with our security. Future elections will confirm that.

Choosing a liberal to protect you over a conservative is like buying a poodle to be your guard dog instead of getting a mastiff or a bulldog. American people will confirm my claim when the election time comes.

Jon, here is a book for you:

Losing Bin Laden: How Bill Clinton's Failures Unleashed Global Terror
by Richard Miniter

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0895260743/qid=1064504651/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-3003127-3077707?v=glance&s=books

Stefan

Originally posted by SirStefan32


What point does this prove? It proves my point that liberals are not capable of defending and protecting us.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt and John Fitzgerald Kennedy are going nuts up in Heaven right now.

If they are in heaven.:)

I respect both of these guys, but they are not to be mixed with Clintons, Gores, Nikkita Deans, and Jean Pierre Kerry's of today's political stage.

It makes me laugh every time I see the political game played. Most of the people I have met didn't really have a problem with Bill Clinton being President. They had a problem with Bill Clinton (D) being President. Most of the people who complain about George W Bush don't really have a problem with him being President. Their problem is that George W Bush (R) being President.

Those people who vote for democrat think Clinton did nothing wrong during his terms in office. Those people who republican think Bush has done nothing and will do nothing wrong during his time in office.

The opposite is also true. Those people who vote democrat think Bush has done everything wrong and those people who vote republican think Clinton was horrible and did everything wrong. If Bush was a D and Clinton was an R and did the exact same things in office the arguments and support would be the same. They would just be argued by different people.

As long as this country is divided by the Ds and the Rs that come after the politician's names this country's problems will go unsolved.

Originally posted by Cardiologist
It makes me laugh every time I see the political game played. Most of the people I have met didn't really have a problem with Bill Clinton being President. They had a problem with Bill Clinton (D) being President. Most of the people who complain about George W Bush don't really have a problem with him being President. Their problem is that George W Bush (R) being President.

Those people who vote for democrat think Clinton did nothing wrong during his terms in office. Those people who republican think Bush has done nothing and will do nothing wrong during his time in office.

The opposite is also true. Those people who vote democrat think Bush has done everything wrong and those people who vote republican think Clinton was horrible and did everything wrong. If Bush was a D and Clinton was an R and did the exact same things in office the arguments and support would be the same. They would just be argued by different people.

As long as this country is divided by the Ds and the Rs that come after the politician's names this country's problems will go unsolved.


I'd have to agree 100% with this statement.

But what do you propose that we do?

I mean we all have beliefs about what's right and wrong, we all have our worldviews, and we vote/ support those who share our beliefs. R and D or no R and D after somebody's name, we will always like or dislike people based on what they believe and what worldview, or economic system they advance.

Originally posted by SirStefan32
But what do you propose that we do?

I mean we all have beliefs about what's right and wrong, we all have our worldviews, and we vote/ support those who share our beliefs. R and D or no R and D after somebody's name, we will always like or dislike people based on what they believe and what worldview, or economic system they advance.

You might. You apparently find out enough to determine whether or not you'd support a candidate based on the issues. Whether or not I agre wiht you, I can commend you for going tat far. I think Cardiologist is right. The vast majority of the voting populice vote solely based on party affiliation.

And the politicians use that to their advantage by taking pot shots using terms like liberal and conservative that are known to vilify the other to their constiuencies. Its quite sad in my opinion.

Originally posted by SirStefan32
But what do you propose that we do?

I mean we all have beliefs about what's right and wrong, we all have our worldviews, and we vote/ support those who share our beliefs. R and D or no R and D after somebody's name, we will always like or dislike people based on what they believe and what worldview, or economic system they advance.
First of all, thank you schutd.

Now to answer Stefan's question. If you condem Bush for soemthing that Clinton also did you have to condem Clinton as well. If you condem Clinton for doing something that Bush also did you have to condem Bush as well. If something is wrong for one it is wrong for the other. Saying Bush lied and should be removed from office and saying that Clinton lied but did not deserve being removed from office is an unfair and unrealistic (not to mention just plain stupid) double standard.

If you think Bush should be removed from office show me something that he has done that deserves this that Clinton has not done (and visa versa).

Originally posted by schutd
You might. You apparently find out enough to determine whether or not you'd support a candidate based on the issues. Whether or not I agre wiht you, I can commend you for going tat far. I think Cardiologist is right. The vast majority of the voting populice vote solely based on party affiliation.

And the politicians use that to their advantage by taking pot shots using terms like liberal and conservative that are known to vilify the other to their constiuencies. Its quite sad in my opinion.
I agree. I wonder what is worse, the millions of apatetic non-voters or the millions of party aligned only voters?

Most of the issues that are of concern to me direct me towards a particular party, but I am not locked into that party.

Originally posted by schutd
You might. You apparently find out enough to determine whether or not you'd support a candidate based on the issues. Whether or not I agre wiht you, I can commend you for going tat far. I think Cardiologist is right. The vast majority of the voting populice vote solely based on party affiliation.

And the politicians use that to their advantage by taking pot shots using terms like liberal and conservative that are known to vilify the other to their constiuencies. Its quite sad in my opinion.

I agree. I mean, we ought to support or opose people based on what they believe in, based on their plans.

I wish there was a way to get American people to VOTE! It is sad that 35- 40% of people vote.

Originally posted by Cardiologist
If Bush was a D and Clinton was an R and did the exact same things in office the arguments and support would be the same. They would just be argued by different people.



First, great post.

I agree on everything except what happened with Clinton and Monica. If Clinton was an R, the majority of his own party would have gone after him on it, right along with the D's.

Originally posted by Brian in Mesa
First, great post.

I agree on everything except what happened with Clinton and Monica. If Clinton was an R, the majority of his own party would have gone after him on it, right along with the D's.
I agree with that. Rs won't stand for a Bush extra-martital romp.

Originally posted by Cardiologist
I agree with that. Rs won't stand for a Bush extra-martital romp.

How do you guys know that?

I can register Green, or Libertarian like i used to - til they brought a speaker to the party meeting that started spewing white supremacy - i ripped up my voter card on the spot.
I have the right to pick any primary i want in state and local elections. I pick Republican and vote AGAINST the most repulsive bible thumper. I LOVE our split government in AZ - R's hold the house, a D has the governer's seat.
I LIKE election day! I LIKE voting! Now all America needs is a true worker's party to battle the big money corporate parties - the R's and D's....

Originally posted by andikrist
Now all America needs is a true worker's party to battle the big money corporate parties - the R's and D's....

You mean, like commies?? :D

...more like the way the labor parties in Europe used to be.
Populism without racism......

Originally posted by schutd
How do you guys know that?
Because of the evangelical christian/mormon influence in the party.

Originally posted by andikrist
...more like the way the labor parties in Europe used to be.
Populism without racism......

Oh, you mean Fabian Socialists? We already have a party that stands for same things and principles. We don't need another one.

Originally posted by Cardiologist
Because of the evangelical christian/mormon influence in the party.

OK Cool. So you can ASSUME that the republican party wouldn't stand for it, but you don't know.

Originally posted by schutd
OK Cool. So you can ASSUME that the republican party wouldn't stand for it, but you don't know.
Well, I guess anything that you are extrapolating or predicting or hypothesizing is an assumption. I assume that when I go to sleep at night I will wake up in the morning. I assume that when I leave for work, I will also come home afterwards. I assume when I eat a meal I will not choke on the food. And I assume that the religious republicans would forgive but not ignore a sexual transgression from a Republican President.

Most of the dogmatic religious folks I know are consistent with their stances on things like this. It is still an assumption, but it is a safe assumption to make.

I think in any other office besides the presidency, that might hold true. They would pressure the person to resign OI bet. However, I dont know that they would do that in the highest officein the land. Its just my gut feeling. nothing more than an opinion.

I wonder who HAS had affairs and just hasnt been caught yet....

Originally posted by schutd
I think in any other office besides the presidency, that might hold true. They would pressure the person to resign OI bet. However, I dont know that they would do that in the highest officein the land. Its just my gut feeling. nothing more than an opinion.

I wonder who HAS had affairs and just hasnt been caught yet....
IF that ever happened and the Rs didn't pressure the person to resign they would lose about 20% of their votes. Not that those 20% would go to the Ds or any other party, but to the Rs who would then be runnings as Independants.

I agree with Cardiologist here.

Originally posted by SirStefan32
I agree with Cardiologist here.

I think you might be right. That would help the democrats IMMENSELY. A split republican party would be casue for celebration for the Dems. Much like STefan celebrates the idea of long time Dems now voting Green.

What would you guys prefer? A striong united Republican party, willing to overlook non-job performance issues like infidelity, or a hard line stance of core family values at the expense of the strength of the party, and a possible return to power by the Dems?

Its a tough position to be in, for sure.

Originally posted by schutd
I think you might be right. That would help the democrats IMMENSELY. A split republican party would be casue for celebration for the Dems. Much like STefan celebrates the idea of long time Dems now voting Green.

What would you guys prefer? A striong united Republican party, willing to overlook non-job performance issues like infidelity, or a hard line stance of core family values at the expense of the strength of the party, and a possible return to power by the Dems?

Its a tough position to be in, for sure.

I think our party needs to go back to the core values established by Ronnie, Bob Dole, and otherConservatives. I am against compromising our values of limited gov't, personal freedoms and Judeo- Christian traditional values.

At this point, I would keep Bush, but I would like to see people like Trent Lott, Rick Sentorum, Tom Deley, etc gain power over George Bush, Arlan Specter, Bill Frist.

As I said in another thread, it's about voting for the lesser of two evils.

Stefan

Isnt that sad? Politics today almost ALWAYS ends up as voting for the lesser of two evils.

Know what tells me? And of course this is just an opinion....

To hold office, you have to be rich, not good.

Sad indeed.

Stefan, with the way things are changing socially these days, and it does seem tha everyone, including Pubs are leaning more left socially, do you think a strict jdeo-christian belief based republican party would stand a chance to keep power in politics?

I dont.

Originally posted by schutd
I think you might be right. That would help the democrats IMMENSELY. A split republican party would be casue for celebration for the Dems. Much like STefan celebrates the idea of long time Dems now voting Green.

What would you guys prefer? A striong united Republican party, willing to overlook non-job performance issues like infidelity, or a hard line stance of core family values at the expense of the strength of the party, and a possible return to power by the Dems?

Its a tough position to be in, for sure.
You are assuming that it is the position and not he man occupying the position that gives it it's signifigance. Knowing what is commonly known by all about the religious right, do you really think they will overlook something they know to be sin? One of the requirements to be a leader to those religious right is not participating in sin. I think enough of the religious wing of the republican party would split from the main party and vote for someone else. In 1992 it was the evangelical vote that left the republican party and voted for Perot when he first ran.

Originally posted by schutd
Isnt that sad? Politics today almost ALWAYS ends up as voting for the lesser of two evils.

Know what tells me? And of course this is just an opinion....

To hold office, you have to be rich, not good.

Sad indeed.

Stefan, with the way things are changing socially these days, and it does seem tha everyone, including Pubs are leaning more left socially, do you think a strict jdeo-christian belief based republican party would stand a chance to keep power in politics?

I dont.

Absolutely! 60% of my Christian friends don't vote. If somebody came out and said, "We are going to stick to our judeo- christian beliefs", they would start voting.

The trick is giving people who don't vote a reason to vote. First party/ politician to do that will win.

As far as leaning left socially, you'll be surprised what adding a couple of textualists/ originalists to the Supreme Court would do.
Things could be fixed within months.

Anyways, I agree, it sucks to vote for the lesser of two evils, but hey, what can a man do except try running for some kind of a public office, work his way up, and hope that voters will recognize his honesty and integrity.

Stefan

Originally posted by SirStefan32

Things could be fixed within months.

Stefan

Heh. Who said they were broken????

Every decent conservative on the face of the earth.