posted by JDeuce:
Kind of ironic, given that the Republican platform was taken over by the Whigs in the mid-19th century after disagreements on Clay's "American Plan" among other issues. The modern Republican agenda is virtually indistinguishable from that of the Whigs under Clay and later Lincoln's influence, and bears hardly any semblance at all to the Republican agenda prior to the great Whig conversion.
Phaedrue
Kind of ironic, given that the Republican platform was taken over by the Whigs in the mid-19th century after disagreements on Clay's "American Plan" among other issues. The modern Republican agenda is virtually indistinguishable from that of the Whigs under Clay and later Lincoln's influence, and bears hardly any semblance at all to the Republican agenda prior to the great Whig conversion.
Phaedrue
For that matter the republicans in power today don't resemble the party of 20 years ago. The only difference between them and old tax and spend democrats is they put spending on credit. Also weren't the democrats of 30 or 40 years ago the ones wanting to bring democracy to every third world shlthole? I sometimes wonder if the same folks spewing the wingnut rhetoric today would have been democrats 40 years ago.
Notice how when liberals talk about why they are against the war, the first thing that always comes up is how bad Bush is.
Bush could END WORLD HUNGER, GUARANTEE WORLD PEACE (he is on his way of accomplishing that) and find the cure to every ailment that plagues mankind and they would still hate him with a passion.
If you ask 100 of these democrats who the better president was, Jimmy Carter or Ronald Reagan, 95 of them will say Jimmy Carter did a better job.
Even though Bill Clinton had the morals of a prostitute, he always got the support of republicans everytime we went to war even though the United States had no business in any of them. The reason why our country flourished under Bill Clinton was because the republican controlled congress was more than willing to work with him to move the country forward on behalf of the American people.
It would have been very easy for republicans to put the hammerlock on Uncle Bill's never ending request for social spending, but the republicans compromised to make sure the government would run as smoothly as possible.
Ego, very good analysis of why the war on Iraq was necessary.
Bush could END WORLD HUNGER, GUARANTEE WORLD PEACE (he is on his way of accomplishing that) and find the cure to every ailment that plagues mankind and they would still hate him with a passion.
If you ask 100 of these democrats who the better president was, Jimmy Carter or Ronald Reagan, 95 of them will say Jimmy Carter did a better job.
Even though Bill Clinton had the morals of a prostitute, he always got the support of republicans everytime we went to war even though the United States had no business in any of them. The reason why our country flourished under Bill Clinton was because the republican controlled congress was more than willing to work with him to move the country forward on behalf of the American people.
It would have been very easy for republicans to put the hammerlock on Uncle Bill's never ending request for social spending, but the republicans compromised to make sure the government would run as smoothly as possible.
Ego, very good analysis of why the war on Iraq was necessary.
4moreyears said:
Probably a good move on your part. Political mumbo jumbo tends to confuse and disorient me, anyway. Gawd, just trying to wrap my head around exceptionalists electing imperialists who pose simultaneously as realists and idealists is enough to give me the spins! Thank you soooooo much for your consideration. I'll just go back to my Bush-bashing for no good reason and leave the heavy thinking to your kind. Sweetie, you are.
I'd just like to know what kind of a signal would it send the world,if by chance 60% of the people of Iraq(eligible voters) turned out to vote on Sunday.
Through all the terror threats and all the killing of innocents.I think it would be an amazing thing and it woud tell you what the people of Iraq really think just by the numbers that show up through gunfire,while a segment of Clevleand won't vote because there is a Big DaddyPeePeeCACA free concert or somthing on Music TV.
And if the figures turn out like that then where the hell is the UN to protect their freedom of expression?
Just like in Afghan. you had woman have their religious death rights given before they went oout in voted the next day fearing it would be their last,but thats courage.
A big turn out on Sunday will shut a lot of people up.
Through all the terror threats and all the killing of innocents.I think it would be an amazing thing and it woud tell you what the people of Iraq really think just by the numbers that show up through gunfire,while a segment of Clevleand won't vote because there is a Big DaddyPeePeeCACA free concert or somthing on Music TV.
And if the figures turn out like that then where the hell is the UN to protect their freedom of expression?
Just like in Afghan. you had woman have their religious death rights given before they went oout in voted the next day fearing it would be their last,but thats courage.
A big turn out on Sunday will shut a lot of people up.
Judge Wapner said:
Man what's with all this left wing and right wing BS I've been reading here lately. No one can make a opinoun without being lumped in a group? I'm neither and don't want to be. So now if I question the war and its ineffectiveness, I'm considered abortion-loving, gun rights hating, welfare giving, left wing nut??? Political parties are dividing America even further as time goes along.
Patriot said:
Obviously that would be better than 10% or 20% showing to the polls. But the problem of Sunni participation is very real and not likely to improve in the next five days. The Shi'ia will undoubtedly be in power come Monday morning -- this was bound to happen no matter how Saddam fell -- how far away is civil war at that point?
Around the time of our June election and your November election I looked at historical voter turnout percentages. If memory serves, each of our countries had 90% turnout in the early stages. As generations are borne into democracy, complacency sets it. I think this is inevitable regardless of the country.
I don't understand your question. Should freedom of expression not be protected by the gov't in power?
True, though it's also true that Karzai only controls Kabul and a handful of pockets around him. The Afghani gov't has a wee deal with the warlords surrounding him that each to his own, and leave us be. It's a fragmented gov't in Afghanistan, hardly a solid model.
I doubt that. The big test isn't the percentages on Sunday, but what this democracy looks like in ten, fifteen, twenty, fifty years time. Right now democracy is being enforced via American machinery. What happens if/when the US leaves? What if the Shi'ia decide to reform to a theocracy? It's really hard to not be skeptical of such things in that particular region.
All your points have some validity.But for the people in Iraq to show up in droves through a hail of bullets and bombs show beyond a reasonable doubt that they support some sort of democracy.
I amm assuming that their constitution would limit a religious say so.
You know some of the same things you and your libs suport.
What some of your points suggest to me is that, the morning the Wright brother flew a airplane a 100 feet....Some people were bitching their were no connector flights and lack of cocktail stewardess.
In 1864 only half the US was allowed to reelect Abraham Lincoln.
what gets me through all this is that what the left champions, counting every vote is only valid in a losing election on their side.
I amm assuming that their constitution would limit a religious say so.
You know some of the same things you and your libs suport.
What some of your points suggest to me is that, the morning the Wright brother flew a airplane a 100 feet....Some people were bitching their were no connector flights and lack of cocktail stewardess.
In 1864 only half the US was allowed to reelect Abraham Lincoln.
what gets me through all this is that what the left champions, counting every vote is only valid in a losing election on their side.
Patriot said:
What is shows, beyond a reasonable doubt, is that the Shi'ia population (they are about 70% of the entire population, remember) are looking forward to establishing their own gov't after years of Sunni suppression. Can't blame them, really. Whether or not they will be comfortable with democracy after they have achieved power is another question altogether.
If the US had continued to back the Shi'ia in the early 90s, and Saddam had been overthrown and replaced by a Shi'ia-led regime, do you think they would have willingly instilled democracy? I know that I highly doubt it.
I support secularism in Canada (and the US, only because we all live under your umbrella to some degree) but frankly don't really give a crap what a country halfway around the world is doing in this regard. I support sovereignty, universally, and think that the West spends far too much time converting other countries when it's none of our damned business.
?
Can't comment, since voter fraud has never been an issue here. (I can tell you that if the Canadian gov't decided to introduce paperless voting machines, I'd be in full agreement, so long as they let me file my taxes with nothing other than my word, too.)
I mean no matter what happens in the election all your going to hear about is the flaws about the process from the left,BBC, NY Times,Dan Rather.
Not the fact that the election actually got off the ground and flew what amounts to a 100 feet. so to speak.
Not perfect but hopefully a start.
The problem with the left is that they would like you to believe that world history began 10 minutes ago.
Patriot said:
I am not optimistic about the future in Iraq.
However, the bad things that I suspect will happen there (some of which sadly are already occuring) are based on events that have already transpired in places like Vietnam, Algeria, and the Phillipines. None of those conflicts took place just ten minutes ago.
Ironically, sometimes I think the problem with the right is that they ignore history.
Patriot said:
Did you hear Bush's inauguration speech? The man talked about exporting freedom and democracy and oooh la la without ONCE mentioning Iraq. His greatest experiment with this new Wilsonian idealism (minus diplomacy, plus bullets) and he fails to mention it when he tries to get you on board for more of the same?? Now, you tell me, who's not thinking far enough ahead, while simultaneously ignoring history?
The problem is not at all that the Left (by 'left' I presume you actually are talking about the anti-war types many of whom are 'right' or neither here nor there) believes that history happened 10 minutes ago. The problem is that the US seems to believe history started when Columbus showed up. The ME has a history spanning 5000 years and y'all think some namby pamby President is going to just wipe this all away and Americanise the place? It's preposterous (never mind mindblowingly arrogant.) I'd invite you to read up on the British and French experiments in the region. Have a boo at the legacy of Lawrence of Arabia.
The 'left' knows its history, and knows that trying to re-write it leaves you vulnerable to repeat it.
I have a (possibly rhetorical) question for you: if the Bush admin were at one time concerned with the possibility of a terrorist attack interrupting your elections to a great enough degree as to invite debate (until the press hammered them) to postpone said elections, why is it that they won't hear word one on the idea in Iraq?
I don't think he had to mention Iraq by name. speaking in that vain.I hardly doubt he was trying to dodge the Iraq issue.
I don't agree with the nation bldg. sh1t either.
Knowing what I know now I wouldn't agree with the war either.But what I know now is different ffrom the speeches Bill Clinton gave on WMD and the need to act on it....Nobody else did either back then.But we know now.
I pay taxes for the military to kill people and break things...not social work.
Thats was thrown out there....It was the press who gave the story any credence to begin with,so they would have something to hammer.<TABLE class=tborder cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" align=center border=0><TBODY><TR vAlign=top><TD class=alt1>I have a (possibly rhetorical) question for you: if the Bush admin were at one time concerned with the possibility of a terrorist attack interrupting your elections to a great enough degree as to invite debate (until the press hammered them) to postpone said elections, why is it that they won't hear word one on the idea in Iraq?
<!-- / message --></TD></TR><TR><TD class=alt2>
</TD><TD class=alt1 align=right><!-- controls --></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
As is half their creations.
There was no serious discussion on postponing the elections.
Although the press that you mention would love to overturn an election because a couple of blacks were asked for their ID....and thats not a fabrication.
Last edited:
The great comedy of this senseless Bush bashing is that the right wing zealots were doing the same thing to Clinton about 8 years ago.
Back then it was "wag the Dog" and bombing the Chinese embassy and all the rest of the crap - and back then just as now, there are nuggets of truth mixed in with the bullcrap.
Clinton lied and got caught because of a cum stained dress! There is no cum stained dress to help trap Bush - only a bunch of wishful thinking, baseless accusations and a few forged documents. Is Bush lying? Maybe! But no one can prove anything!
Stucco - why don't you answer this question; what's the difference between Henry Hyde 8 years ago and Teddy KennedY today? (Besides a cum stained dress.)
The war is a fact - it's started and no politician that wants to be re-elected will end it before it's run it's course!
What all of you people should be doing is reviewing and changing the Democrat Platform to bring your party into the 21st Century. You're hemorrhaging voters and killing our two party system. Earlier in this string, I noticed some moron talking Whigs and Republicans from more than 150 years ago - as though it's relevant to today's discussion! Well, the Democrats could go the way of the Whigs if they don't wake up and smell the coffee.
Back then it was "wag the Dog" and bombing the Chinese embassy and all the rest of the crap - and back then just as now, there are nuggets of truth mixed in with the bullcrap.
Clinton lied and got caught because of a cum stained dress! There is no cum stained dress to help trap Bush - only a bunch of wishful thinking, baseless accusations and a few forged documents. Is Bush lying? Maybe! But no one can prove anything!
Stucco - why don't you answer this question; what's the difference between Henry Hyde 8 years ago and Teddy KennedY today? (Besides a cum stained dress.)
The war is a fact - it's started and no politician that wants to be re-elected will end it before it's run it's course!
What all of you people should be doing is reviewing and changing the Democrat Platform to bring your party into the 21st Century. You're hemorrhaging voters and killing our two party system. Earlier in this string, I noticed some moron talking Whigs and Republicans from more than 150 years ago - as though it's relevant to today's discussion! Well, the Democrats could go the way of the Whigs if they don't wake up and smell the coffee.
