Disgusted with Republicans again.


PDA






Hack
July 10, 2004, 03:08 PM
I've been of the opinion that voting for other than bush is a vote for kerry while maintaining that I would vote Libertarian in this year's elections in races other than presidential.
I have championed this belief with conviction in various arguments both online and elsewhere while simultaneously being sickened by the Republican party's insidious replacement of their ideology with the populist crap flavor of the day.
In my mind Socialists must fail.

I have shut up altogether lately due to administration warnings of terror attacks due up here this summer.
These warnings include statements that terrorists were able to change Spain's vote and so they want to do the same thing here before the election.

Social engineering crap.
There's no question Spain was going to stay right in their election and in that they were very different than we are now just before our election.
Terrorists had nothing to lose in Spain and their gamble paid off big time by taking Spain out of the equation. Spain will suffer.
If terrorists were to attack here over the summer this country would certainly rally behind the president and send the socialists back under mother rock thus defeating terrorist aims.
These animals have in past shown remarkable patience and cunning. I don't believe they would step on their own by attacking here before the election.

This warning along with stuff like alien amnesty and even the thought of world court control over our military has, for me, crystalized how close republicans are to stinkin' socialists and may well be the end of my affiliation with the republican party.
I can no longer stomach justifying this kind of stuff as a means to an end.

If you enjoyed reading about "Disgusted with Republicans again." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
GeneC
July 10, 2004, 03:46 PM
so·cial·ism
Pronunciation: 'sO-sh&-"li-z&m
Function: noun
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done


Hack, lets first make clear which Party leans toward Socialism by defining just what socialism is. To me, the Democratic Party is more socialistic than the Republican Party because to me, MORE Govt intervention and control is socialism. Welfare, food stamps , govt health care, etc is socialism. When SOCIAL services can come into your home and take your children, that's socialism. Please explain to me how alien amnesty is socialism and where you think the Govt has given military control over to world court?

Justin
July 10, 2004, 05:08 PM
GeneC-

I'm not going to presume to answer hack's question for him, but here are just a few examples of Bush and his very obviously socialist leanings:

1)With much fanfare, passed Ted Kennedy's bloated education bill.

2)Approved the biggest expansion of government-paid health benefits in more than 10 years. (Medicare, Medicaid.)

3)Open admission of support for reauthorizing the ban on so-called "assault weapons"

4)Supported instituting taxation on imported steel.

I could continue, but there's no need. In essence, choosing between Republicans and Democrats is nothing more than an exercise in splitting hairs.

Modern politics is all just Coke vs. Pepsi style marketing.

edited for clarity.

Shanghai McCoy
July 10, 2004, 05:20 PM
Will Rodgers once said that there was'nt a nickles worth of differance between the two parties....he's still right.

GeneC
July 10, 2004, 05:39 PM
Justin, how can you equate any of that with socialism?

1) can you provide a link to the bill?
2) How is expanding Govt health care (I'm assuming you're talkin about expanding the health care benefits of govt employees)?
3) assault weapons-war on terrorism, times are different now.
4) How is taxing imported steel socialistic?

Waitone
July 10, 2004, 05:50 PM
I have to disagree. My view is the republican party has no discernable belief system. And I find that to be far more dangerous than any communist, marxist, socialist or islamofascist system. The man or woman or party that believes in nothing is capable of anything. Rules of conduct break down. Social policy devolves into acquisition of power.

If I wanted to elect socialists I would elect democrats. I may disagree with a socialist agenda but at least it is an agenda. I get the willies looking at a party that one day professes adherance to the constitution and the next day signs legislation that directly attacks political speech. I get really scared of a political strategy that says, "Hey, we can just become the other party by taking away their issues." Republicans at one time stood for (didn't say were) limited government and limited spending. So now we find those same republicans are probably the biggest spenders in our history, and all for the purpose of expanding government.

It is frightening to see republicans morph from day to day just to acquire power. A Kerry election will cause us to head for a socialist/communist/internationalist future at a rapid rate. A Bush re election will push us toward an internationalist future. I just don't know what kind.

capt. Nemo
July 10, 2004, 05:52 PM
GeneC,

Expanding government supplementation of ANYTHING is socialism. Where do you think the funds for government spending comes from?

How does regulating "assault weapons" equate to the war on terrorism? Do the 'different times" dictate an erosion of rights for the law-abiding, patriotic, LEGAL Americans?

I'm not saying that all social programs are wrong. There are many that, properly administered, are extremely beneficial to society as a whole. Unfortunately, there are very few...maybe none that are government run...that are properly administered.

Just my two cents worth...

Buck

GeneC
July 10, 2004, 06:13 PM
Capt Nemo, you mean to tell me that if the Pres signs a bill to allow more options to govt workers on their health care, that's socialism?

Where do funds come from? Depends on the party Dems get it by cutting back on the military and raising taxes, not mention taxing SS, which should never have happened.


Assault rifles don't equate to the war on terrorism. We are at war, different rules; terrorists use assault rifles, they need to be regulated, but not banned. How do you equate regulated to banned?


I still haven't seen a definition of socialism, I've seen examples of non socialistic things being called socialist, so I have to wonder....

Chris Rhines
July 10, 2004, 06:28 PM
Yet more evidence that one can quote the definition of a word without having any understanding of its meaning...

- Chris

capt. Nemo
July 10, 2004, 06:30 PM
It depends on whether the "options" cause my taxes to increase at the expense of another government sponsored fubar. The notion that government employees deserve more and/or better benefits than the general population just because they "work for the government" sticks in my craw. I don't know 1-in-1000 federal, state or local government employees that "serve" out of a sense of patriotism or duty. 999 out that 1,000 are in it because it pays well, has great benefits and retirement, affords some - more or less - power and influence and, as long as everybody keeps paying taxes, offers lifelong employment with retirement at the end.

There's nothing mystical about being a government employee. Been to have your driver's license renewed lately? Had somebody else's mail delivered to your house or vice-versa?

What branch of the government DO you work for?

GeneC
July 10, 2004, 06:53 PM
Chris, why don't you enlighten me? I've never actually lived in a Socialistic govt, so all I can go by IS the definition, which says a govt where there's no private property, nope not America, a society where the Govt controls all production and distribution, again , not in America.

capt. Nemo
July 10, 2004, 06:58 PM
If you think that regulation will keep "assault weapons" out of the hands of bad guys,. you're on the wrong side:confused:

GeneC
July 10, 2004, 07:14 PM
Come on Nemo, you know as well as I do that nothing will stop a BG from getting anything they want, but it'll sure slow them down, compared to the alternative.

capt. Nemo
July 10, 2004, 07:18 PM
Gene,

PM on the way. I'm curious about your line of thinking. I'm always open to learning new viewpoints. Let's get it off the thread.

Talk to you soon.

Buck

cloudkiller
July 10, 2004, 08:31 PM
Neither the democrats nor the reps are true socialists. They advocate different elements in a mixed market system. Democrats tend to favor more government control over economic forces, as well as more regulations that restrict material activities in the name of the common good. They also tend to favor government programs to provide for people perceived as needy and disadvantaged. Reps on the other hand favor regulation that limits regulation and liability of business interests, but will favor taxation for the sake of advancing specific business interests, for example business incentives to specific industries. Republicans will favor regulation to limit individual behavior in moral arena, regulating expression more than democrats. They will also favor regulation to allow public money to be used for religious interests.

The fact is, we have never, ever had a system that was free of government, public money, or government resources for specific ends. We have had bouts where certain facist principles were advanced, and bouts where more socialist influences have come into play. With the growth of government and regulation we have "more" socialist influences playing into the mixed market system we enjoy. HOWEVER, we are hardly a socialist country.

The terrorist activities in Spain have nothing to do with Social Engineering crap. What happened was crap and evil, but that isn't the term for it. Social engineering is passing laws to limit racial mixing, or inter-class mixing, etc.

Amnesty for illegal aliens is actually more of a libertarian position than a socialist one. Most countries that lean more towards socialism have far more restrictive regulations concerning immigrants than we do. In the days of less regulation, such as at the turn of the century, immigration doors were far wider open (legal immigration) than they are now.

achadwick
July 10, 2004, 09:25 PM
Good post, Justin.

I'm voting Libertarian this time around.

Standing Wolf
July 10, 2004, 09:33 PM
The man or woman or party that believes in nothing is capable of anything.

Well said, Waitone!

Unless it's an extremely close election in Colorado, I'll vote Libertarian. Every time I vote for the lesser of two evils, I end up voting for evil.

GeneC
July 10, 2004, 10:04 PM
What a bunch of hooey. Anybody that believes in anything or something or nothing is capable of anything or nothing or something...blah blah blah blah blah. And some thinks that's cosmic, hardyharhar.

I'm tired of all this belly aching about how everthing isn't perfect, guess what, it never will be until we clean house in Congress. if an elected official doesn't vote for their district , boot them out that week. We could all push and elect officials who'll push for Constitutional ammendments to make Congress balance the budget annually (and that'll take care of alot of wasteful spending).

First there's folk bitching 'cause illegal aliens are coming over and taking jobs and then getting on welfare and SSI and not paying taxes and how much it costs taxpayers for health care for them and to patrol the borders and round them up and send them back, just so they can come back across tomorrow, it's a big joke in this Country. Thing is , they're doing backbreaking , menial work that NOBODY here wants to do for the measely pay they get. So this President tries to come up with a solution and folks bitch about that too. Amnesty, amnesty for what? Because they want to come over here and make a living? I say let them, but sign up and pay taxes and get citizenship and do it the right way. I tell ya , I think it's a great idea. What better way to keep track of them and let them start paying taxes too. Not to mention the money saved rounding them up all the time.

I want anyone here who thinks they can do a better job, get off yer butt and go do it.

MrAcheson
July 10, 2004, 11:11 PM
The notion that government employees deserve more and/or better benefits than the general population just because they "work for the government" sticks in my craw. I don't know 1-in-1000 federal, state or local government employees that "serve" out of a sense of patriotism or duty. 999 out that 1,000 are in it because it pays well, has great benefits and retirement, affords some - more or less - power and influence and, as long as everybody keeps paying taxes, offers lifelong employment with retirement at the end.


Hi, government employee here. I am a civilian working for the US Army. For the record, we may get slightly better benefits than private industry folks. We start with 13 vacation days where most private industry folks only get 10. Medical is the same, I have blue cross. Gone are the days of pensions, I essentially have a government administrated 401k similar to what lots of companies use.

To balance benefits we get paid a lot less. Anyone who says that government service is where to make money is a fool. I could easily be making 10k more in private industry doing contracting. Why don't I? Government service gives me the employment stability my dad never had as an engineer in the aircraft industry. Plus I get to serve my country in a time of war, which despite the statistics you pulled from your ass, is a big motivator for myself and my coworkers. So far I haven't been sent to Iraq yet. Yet.

As for influence, what am I a congressional staffer? My job is governed by lots of rules written by people way way above my pay grade. To say that I have power and influence is a steaming pantload. The typical employee is me, not Senator Bedfellows Foriegn Policy Wonk or any sort of policy maker. The ???? runs down hill to us.

Before you blame the government for the wait at the DMV, think about the wait at your Drs. Office or to get your car fixed or any number of other places that have nothing to do with government. Its the same folks in different outfits. I've spoken to enough people working for Big Business that I know Government isn't really any different. Big Business pinches its pennies in different places, they give more salary but less benefits and stability.

capt. Nemo
July 10, 2004, 11:38 PM
MrAcheson,

If I don't like waiting in line at my Dr's office or the oil change place or the barber shop, I go to another one. As far as I know there aren't many choices when it comes to things like driver's license renewal, tags, titles and the like. Waiting in line to pay a surly, lazy clerk who's being paid by my tax money sticks in my craw...can't cough it up and can't swallow it.

Blue Cross? How much does it cost you a month?

You get paid a lot less? Less than who? If you could be "easily" making $10,000 more in the private sector you really ARE a patriot and I thank you from the bottom of my heart. People who make that kind of sacrifice are few and far between these days.

The "statistics" I referred to weren't meant to be statistics. It was just a generalization. Maybe it is 1-in 772.

Thankyou for your service.

Hack
July 11, 2004, 01:46 AM
Neither the democrats nor the reps are true socialists.

Enlightening but that should read:
Neither the democrats nor the reps are true socialists. Today.

They both appear to me to be on the inexorable march to totalitarianism whether true socialism or some funky form of fascism.
What's the difference if one is at socialism's doorstep and the other has a few years before total conversion if they're both on the road?
I'm sick of making the distinction.


The terrorist activities in Spain have nothing to do with Social Engineering crap. What happened was crap and evil, but that isn't the term for it. Social engineering is passing laws to limit racial mixing, or inter-class mixing, etc.

The bush administration is putting out stuff I don't think they believe true to scare as many people as possible into rallying around the president.
Societal Coersion using a basic human instinct.
If the administration's claims are knowingly based on falsehood the term Social Engineering seems fitting indeed with or without laws attached.
If this warning is based on the administration's actual beliefs we may find ourselves truly screwed as they would seem way too ready to clamp down for any whim, logical or not.
I don't think the admin believes their own spin and this is sheep herding.
I'm done.


Amnesty for illegal aliens is actually more of a libertarian position than a socialist one.

Anybody care to chime in?


Gene.....you've sold your soul.

Cool Hand Luke 22:36
July 11, 2004, 01:48 AM
Thing is , they're doing backbreaking , menial work that NOBODY here wants to do for the measely pay they get

That's a myth.

Illegals are working in jobs like trucking, auto mechanics, skilled construction trades, meatpacking, heavy equipment operations, small businesses, etc. They are displacing American workers in huge numbers from what used to be very well paying jobs.

Bush's strong advocacy of an open border immigration policy towards Mexico is one of the primary reasons I won't be voting for him again.

Art Eatman
July 11, 2004, 02:01 AM
The Democrats won't repeal any of the War on Terrorism laws. So, about all that's left is comparing the two parties' meddling in my life and their attacks on my billfold.

From my observations since LBJ went in, the Democrats hurt me more than the Republicans, on a daily basis.

So, as usual, it's the lesser of two weevils. The cornmeal is still spoiled, but with the Republicans it's less so.

I still think the Perot thing gave us Clinton. Nader's run helped Dubya in 2000. And I danged sure don't want Kerry.

So, I'll hold my nose and vote for Bush in the Presidential race. Anti-gun activism is a Democrat thing...

Art

Hack
July 11, 2004, 02:16 AM
I think a lot of people here understand the democratic party was hijacked by megalomaniacal lunacy.
I see that same process occurring in the republican ranks.
I'm done.
My vote don't make any difference anyway. I live in upstate NY.
We're red.

GeneC
July 11, 2004, 09:26 AM
Gene.....you've sold your soul.


Hack, I haven't 'sold my soul', but this is where my heart is: http://www.federalist.com/main/home.asp

GeneC
July 11, 2004, 09:56 AM
Hack said: "The bush administration is putting out stuff I don't think they believe true to scare as many people as possible into rallying around the president.
Societal Coersion using a basic human instinct.
If the administration's claims are knowingly based on falsehood the term Social Engineering seems fitting indeed with or without laws attached.
If this warning is based on the administration's actual beliefs we may find ourselves truly screwed as they would seem way too ready to clamp down for any whim, logical or not.
I don't think the admin believes their own spin and this is sheep herding.
I'm done."


Ok chicken little, the sky is NOT falling. I really think more than a few people here don't really know how this Govt works. OK, lets walk thru this, on 9/11/01, 11 terrorists hijacked some jetliners and flew 2 into the twin towers, one into the Pentagon, one got ditched by the heroic efforts of some great Americans. Thousands of innocent Americans were killed in horrific ways. The days and weeks that followed the majority of this Nation cried for blood and rightly so. We had been attacked on our own home soil, as never before , EVER. More so than Pearl Harbor. So Pres Bush took it to Congress(which is american policy) to get their permission to go to war(per American policy). Congress then holds a hearing on all ALL intelligence from the Pentagon, the FBI CIA and various other agencies, but, THIS WHOLE COUNTRY WAS IN SHOCK and knew that we had to take action. Then Congress votes and decides whether to go to war or not. If they so decide it's then handed over to the Pentagon and the military, where they do what they're paid and trained to do, go to war. In case some haven't noticed , the miliatry learned as soon as they went after Bin laden, that the middle east people were tight knit and part of their success is to not let any foreigner in their group. That should have been a clue, as now the CIA admits that they didn't have actual bodies in these groups ever since UN weapons inspectors were kicked out, so they didn't have first hand intel, but they had 2nd hand intel and in 9/21/01, that was good enough. Sure hindsight is 20/20, woulda, coulda, shoulda, we still did the right thing. This is war on terroroism, wherever it lives. Iraq had terrorist training camps, that was enough. we knew sadm had WMD, 'cause we gave them to him when we put him in charge to fight Russia on Afgan, but he used them on the Kurds instead. Bush was almost obligated to help Iraq rebuild, 'cause his Dad pulled out on them and they didn't trust Jr, but he gained their trust and is doing a hellofa job, imo. Now, so noone is surprised, we might just mosey on into Syria and Egypt, 'cause they're harboring terrorists too. Now, if anyone sees it differently , I'm sure you'll speak up.

Hack
July 11, 2004, 11:28 AM
Gene,



I see your last as misdirection due to an inability to sufficiently justify administration actions in a direct rebuttal.
My reasoning for bailing on republicans is as stated and I see no need for repeat of any comment but one.

Many people understand that megalomaniacal lunacy has hijacked the democratic party.
I see that same process at work in the republican.

That comment will serve as answer to your Federalist papers post.
I think you may well have good intentions but republican ideology is in transition and is being replaced with something I can no longer tolerate.

Justification and misdirection can't hide that slap in the face to those of us who've been lifelong republicans.

GeneC
July 11, 2004, 11:52 AM
Hack, sufficiency is in the eye of the beholder. To some no reason will do , to others no reason is necessary.

fix
July 11, 2004, 12:03 PM
Gene I believe you totally missed the point Justin tried to make. Bush is WAY too liberal. I consider it very unfortunate that he is all we have. I plan to vote for the man, but I'm not swilling the Bush kool-aid. Your "defense" of his policies displays a fundamental lack of understanding of the issues Justin brings up and serves no purpose whatsoever. Respectfully suggest that you google "largest expansion of medicare in history" and do a little reading. We're NOT talking about the health plans of govt workers here.

GeneC
July 11, 2004, 12:17 PM
Coolhandluke said: "That's a myth.

Illegals are working in jobs like trucking, auto mechanics, skilled construction trades, meatpacking, heavy equipment operations, small businesses, etc. They are displacing American workers in huge numbers from what used to be very well paying jobs.

Bush's strong advocacy of an open border immigration policy towards Mexico is one of the primary reasons I won't be voting for him again."


No, all THAT is a myth. I lived Arizona for a couple of years and Cali for 6 yrs and Florida here for 10 yearsand can say INS is all over companies that hire illegals, not to mention insurance companies and unions. Almost all trades now one must prove citizenship and be certified. DoT and DMV and Teamsters checks truckers, USDA and MPU checks meatpackers. Heavy equipment? Forgettaboutit, they have to be more certified than truckers. I'm in the construction trade and I can tell ya NO contractor that wants to stay in business long will allow illegals on the job. Same with small business. Sure there may be a few companies that hire a few illegals, but most the illegals I've seen are migrant workers who slave in the fields planting and gathering our food and clean our houses and care for our lawns.

MacViolinist
July 11, 2004, 12:29 PM
For me, the only issue in the upcomming election is the appointment of SCOTUS justices. Ginsberg, Scalia, and Rhenquist have all talked about retiring, but Rhenquist has stated that he will not retire while GWB is president. It's 6 eggs on one hand and half a dozen on the other. If Kerry gets elected, he will appoint judges that are anti-gun, but possibly pro civil rights. If Bush gets elected, he will appoint judges that are anti civil rights, but possibly pro gun. My own prediction is that Kerry will win, but it won't make a difference in terms of policy. Except that the 1994 AWB will sunset long enough for those of us will money to get what we want. I am taking out massive student loans to make sure that I get what I want....

Art Eatman
July 11, 2004, 12:36 PM
Easy on the phrasing, guys. Scorn the ideas; fine. Scorn the poster, uh-uh.

Art

Brat7748
July 11, 2004, 12:37 PM
Art Eatman hit it right on the head. Perot got us Clinton, Nader got us GWB.
I would love to be a republican 100% but I can't be because GWB has done some pretty un-republican things, and I don't think we want to teach the republicans that the way to power is to be just like the Dem-o-rats.

Hack I live in upstate NY too. I'm going to vote NADER. GWB has 2 chances to take NY slim, and none. BUT I can help the cause of the lesser of two evils. If Nader gets a larger % of the vote this time he will continue to SPLIT the dems, help us get more conservative pols elected.

IF you live in ANY state that is going strongly for either Bush or Kerry vote NADER, encourage him. IF you live in a "battleground" state where the vote wil lbe close vote Bush

GeneC
July 11, 2004, 12:50 PM
Fix, ya mean this one? S.2328
Pharmaceutical Market Access and Drug Safety Act of 2004 (Introduced in Senate)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds that--

(1) Americans unjustly pay up to 5 times more to fill their prescriptions than consumers in other countries;

(2) the United States is the largest market for pharmaceuticals in the world, yet American consumers pay the highest prices for brand pharmaceuticals in the world;

(3) a prescription drug is neither safe nor effective to an individual who cannot afford it;

(4) allowing and structuring the importation of prescription drugs to ensure access to safe and affordable drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration will provide a level of safety to American consumers that they do not currently enjoy;

(5) American seniors alone will spend $1,800,000,000,000 on pharmaceuticals over the next 10 years; and

(6) allowing open pharmaceutical markets could save American consumers at least $38,000,000,000 each year.

fix
July 11, 2004, 01:05 PM
This (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c108:5:./temp/~c108u0Q0h5::) is the one I am talking about. With all due respect, if you were not aware of this monstrosity, then you honestly do not have a sufficient knowledge of the issues to defend Bush's actions here. Again, I do not mean this to be disrespectful. I want to see the President re-elected too, but mainly because the alternative is so offensive to me. You will do the campaign a disservice by arguing on their behalf without a strong grasp of the issues. Please don't take offense. We're on the same side. I'm just suggesting to you that Bush has in fact done some things that are absolutely indefensible. You should accept that and move on. No need to waste time trying to defend these actions.

Edit: Art, I promise to take anything further to PM.

Cool Hand Luke 22:36
July 11, 2004, 01:10 PM
This is war on terroroism, wherever it lives. Iraq had terrorist training camps, that was enough. we knew sadm had WMD, 'cause we gave them to him when we put him in charge to fight Russia on Afgan,


This just ain't so.

At no time did the US ever provide WMD's of any kind to Iraq. It never happened. US assistance to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war consisted of Satellite imagery only. The rest is a fantasy cooked up in the sick mind of hardline anti-American Communist academics like Noam Chomsky.

Saddam Hussein and Iraq played no role whatsoever in ousting the Soviets from Afghanistan. US assistance to the Mujahadeen was channeled through Pakastani Army Intelligence. No US assistance whatsoever went to Bin Laden at any time.

The US did not create the Taliban. The Taliban was formed 10 years after the US ceased to have any significant role in Afghanistan prior to the invasion in 2002.

Cool Hand Luke 22:36
July 11, 2004, 01:17 PM
IF you live in ANY state that is going strongly for either Bush or Kerry vote NADER,

Bad idea. It would be much wiser for American gun owners to vote for the Libertarian Party or Constitution Party candidates under those circumstances.

Nader is a gun grabber to the core and would gladly see every gun manufacturer sued out of existance.

Voting for the Libertarian party or Constitution Party would be much more beneficial as both are very strongly pro-Second Amendment.

encourage him. IF you live in a "battleground" state where the vote wil lbe close vote Bush

Bush has moved so far to the left that this is getting harder and harder to support every day.

Glock Glockler
July 11, 2004, 01:20 PM
How is expanding Govt health care (I'm assuming you're talkin about expanding the health care benefits of govt employees)?

What Justin might have been referring to was not the importation bill but the $400 (now well over 540 and counting) Prescription Drug giveaway for Seniors. Do I need to explain to you how redistribution works and why it’s socialistic?


assault weapons-war on terrorism, times are different now.

On Sept 11th, the day that kicked off this “war” those guys used box-cutters, so why the focus on assault weapons?

Please explain to me why passing laws against assault-weapons, a pledge which Bush made long before Sept 11th, is going to prevent someone from getting one by illegal means. I’m sure you know that the difference between “assault-weapons” and rifles currently considered kosher are in cosmetic appearance, so what good will “regulation” do?

I’d also like to know how you intend to “regulate” assault weapons, perhaps counting box-cutters, without violating the 2nd amendment.



How is taxing imported steel socialistic?

Those tariffs were put in place for the sole reason to protect the steel industry, which means that Americans who are in steel consuming industries as well as end users will now have to pay higher prices to benefit one specific group.

Cool Hand Luke 22:36
July 11, 2004, 01:26 PM
Amnesty for illegal aliens is actually more of a libertarian position than a socialist one.


The net effect of Bush's "open-border" immigration policy will be to create about 20 million new US Citizens and legal resident aliens, of which all will instantly be eligable for every "transfer of wealth" social program that the State and Federal governments can mandate.

In other words, a bigger piece of my property (my money) is to be taken from me and will be spent on if not directly given to Mexican citizens who, as per President Bush, would now living in the US legally.

Sure sound a lot like Socialisim to me.

I am already paying well over half of my income to the Government (Federal, State, and local) in taxes. Bush is now telling me that he thinks it's a good idea to take even more from me in order to elevate the life of they typical Mexican peasant. Any income tax break I might have gotten from Bush will be more than offset by increased State taxes needed to provide services to the illegal Mexican immigrants Bush wants to legalize.

No way am I voting for Bush again. No more votes for Liberal Republican RINO's.

GeneC
July 11, 2004, 01:30 PM
And then there's this: That's why AARP is supporting S. 2328, the bipartisan bill sponsored by Senators Byron Dorgan (D-ND) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and 22 cosponsors, that would legalize the safe importation of prescription drugs from other countries, beginning with Canada.

Surely , if any of you have parents or grandparents that subscribe to the AARP, they are a viscious no nonsense group and if they support it, well, it their dime.

MacViolinist
July 11, 2004, 01:35 PM
This just ain't so.

At no time did the US ever provide WMD's of any kind to Iraq. It never happened. US assistance to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war consisted of Satellite imagery only. The rest is a fantasy cooked up in the sick mind of hardline anti-American Communist academics like Noam Chomsky.

Saddam Hussein and Iraq played no role whatsoever in ousting the Soviets from Afghanistan. US assistance to the Mujahadeen was channeled through Pakastani Army Intelligence. No US assistance whatsoever went to Bin Laden at any time.

The US did not create the Taliban. The Taliban was formed 10 years after the US ceased to have any significant role in Afghanistan prior to the invasion in 2002.


umm. What brand of Kool-Aid are you drinking? Where can I get some? I gotta tell you, my box wine is pretty strong but not that strong. Oh wait, lemme guess; you're a party whore.

fix
July 11, 2004, 01:42 PM
:banghead:

I must be speaking in tongues today!

:banghead:

org
July 11, 2004, 01:43 PM
MacViolinist, trot out the rebuttals. Simply accusing someone of being a party hack won't cut it.

Brat7748
July 11, 2004, 01:45 PM
Cool Hand... Nader got something like 2% of the vote last time. He has 0% chance of winning anything. BUT that 2% came from voters who otherwise would have voted for Gore.

Libertarian party or Constitution Parties voters are much more likely to be folks who would otherwise vote republican...just as Perot slpit the vote in 1992 and gave us Clinton.

The goal for those of us who live in states where the vote will not be close is to try and keep splitting the left leaning vote.

I am not big fan of GWB, but until the republicans come up with another Ronald Ragan, we will just have to play the cards we got

R.H. Lee
July 11, 2004, 01:46 PM
The net effect of Bush's "open-border" immigration policy will be to create about 20 million new US Citizens and legal resident aliens, of which all will instantly be eligable for every "transfer of wealth" social program that the State and Federal governments can mandate.

If implemented, this would be a cultural and economic disaster. I don't know the current status of this plan. I thought GWB 'floated' it for awhile, then it was shot down.

Brat7748
July 11, 2004, 01:47 PM
Oh yeah and one more thing I think Nader is a total fool, But I'll use him if I have to.

fix
July 11, 2004, 01:50 PM
Riley,

It reared it's ugly head again last week while Bush was out pandering to some Hispanic group. I've heard it compared to "holding a fundraising dinner at a homeless shelter."

Cool Hand Luke 22:36
July 11, 2004, 02:07 PM
Cool Hand... Nader got something like 2% of the vote last time. He has 0% chance of winning anything. BUT that 2% came from voters who otherwise would have voted for Gore.

No, not so. Nader drew much more evenly from the Democrat and Republican vote totals.

Libertarian party or Constitution Parties voters are much more likely to be folks who would otherwise vote republican...just as Perot slpit the vote in 1992 and gave us Clinton.

No, Bush senior gave us Clintoon by reneging on his "Read my lips,No new taxes" pledge.

When conservative voters shift their support to the Constitution or Libertarian Party they send a strong message to the Republicans that the leftward "march of the RINO's led by Bush II has cost them.

Voting for the Constitution or Libertarian candidate also gains them public awareness that would be beneficial in future elections.

The goal for those of us who live in states where the vote will not be close is to try and keep splitting the left leaning vote.

Again, you are not somehow splitting the leftist vote by voting for Nader in the general election. All you are doing is subtracting from the vote total that a pro-second amendment candidate from the Constitution Party or Libertarian party would have gotten.

Again, the only way that your vote for Nader could "split" the leftist vote would be if you were a leftist to begin with and are voting for Nader instead of Kerry.

Cool Hand Luke 22:36
July 11, 2004, 02:10 PM
RileyMc:

If implemented, this would be a cultural and economic disaster. I don't know the current status of this plan. I thought GWB 'floated' it for awhile, then it was shot down.


Bush reiterated his support for this plan in a speech to Hispanic voters just yesterday.

Cool Hand Luke 22:36
July 11, 2004, 02:14 PM
MacViolinist:

umm. What brand of Kool-Aid are you drinking? Where can I get some? I gotta tell you, my box wine is pretty strong but not that strong. Oh wait, lemme guess; you're a party whore


Too bad you can't offer anything more substantial in the way of a rebuttal than some lame, cowardly personal attack.

MountainPeak
July 11, 2004, 02:14 PM
Bush stopped the federal government from using Justice dept. and HUD dept. tax dollars in efforts to go after gun owners and gun manufacturers. He reversed the previous administrations assertion that the 2nd Amendment was a "collective" right back to "individual"! These are important wins for gun owners. Ones that certainly wouldn't have happened under Gore, and ones that will be reversed again under a Kerry win. That's a pretty big difference between Republicans and Democrats in my book. It galled me to no end, to see my tax dollars used to fight against the 2nd Amendment. I haven't always been happy with Bush, but not voting for him might end up erasing the above.

Brat7748
July 11, 2004, 02:20 PM
Cool Hand... have to agree with you. Nader did get some republican votes. I am a registered republican and I voted for him. BUT in New York I knew it wouldn't not make any difference, Bush was going to lose in this state big time. I would sure hope that no republican in any of the true battleground states voted Nader.

I also agree that Bush senior not only broke his promise he ran a very poor campaign. Shame on him.

Cool Hand Luke 22:36
July 11, 2004, 02:32 PM
No, all THAT is a myth. I lived Arizona for a couple of years and Cali for 6 yrs and Florida here for 10 yearsand can say INS is all over companies that hire illegals, not to mention insurance companies and unions. Almost all trades now one must prove citizenship and be certified. DoT and DMV and Teamsters checks truckers, USDA and MPU checks meatpackers. Heavy equipment? Forgettaboutit, they have to be more certified than truckers. I'm in the construction trade and I can tell ya NO contractor that wants to stay in business long will allow illegals on the job. Same with small business. Sure there may be a few companies that hire a few illegals, but most the illegals I've seen are migrant workers who slave in the fields planting and gathering our food and clean our houses and care for our lawns.

I am going to have to disagree with you again.

Illegals are NOT confining themselves solely to menial jobs cleaning offices, picking fruit, and digging ditches.

They are opening construction businesses, auto repair shops, landscaping outfits, groceries, resturants, buying property both commercial and residential, etc.

I think you need to get beyond the image of illegal immigrants as a crowd of dusty brown pesants standing behind Ceasar Chavez in a 1963 Life Magazine photo.

BTW- I can match you personal anecdote for personal anecdote. I know folks who own their own contracting businesses that have to compete with those owned by Mexican illegals, Teamsters who've lost good paying jobs to Mexican illegals who'll drive for 1/4th thier wage, lots of folks who work with Perdue and Tyson foods who've seem the huge influx of illegals, lots of neighbors who have had the experience of finding out the Mexican illegal owned home repair contractors they've hired are not bonded or insured, etc...

To say the INS is "all over" companies hiring illegals is innacurate. They are not doing a good job on that, the laws are not being enforced, there is very little fear from most employers that they are going to suffer any penalty for hiring illegals.

Cool Hand Luke 22:36
July 11, 2004, 02:40 PM
org:

MacViolinist, trot out the rebuttals. Simply accusing someone of being a party hack won't cut it

He won't, you can count on it. He wouldn't stoop to a cowardly personal attack if he had the knowledge on the subject to offer anything more intelligent.

Don Gwinn
July 11, 2004, 03:13 PM
Another one bites the dust. Folks, I'm beginning to hate election threads.

If you enjoyed reading about "Disgusted with Republicans again." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!