News & Politics - Repubs/Conservatives: Warning! May Contain Traces of Conservatives And/Or Other Nuts - Page 15

Katis · 10-11-2004, 01:23 PM

Please, let it come true!

Wes&FredFan · 10-12-2004, 05:34 AM

Getting in on this:

When is it wrong to be pro-military? Hello? They are out there saving us. Kerry will weaken them. Has already tried to take away what our troops need. I'm very, very pro-military and support a president who supports them. Clinton certainly didn't support them! He decimated them. And the CIA. I'm very Pro-Iraq. And proud of it. Saddam had to be taken out. Kerry and Clinton would never have had the balls to do it. Both Kerry and Clinton RAN when things got tough. Yeah. That's a leader.

So you agree 1000% with Kerry? Well, he said that he believes that abortion is murder. HE stated it in the 2nd debate. Go back and watch him say it -- I have the tape of it, where he tried to bow down to pro-lifers (ME) by saying "it IS murder, but ...." BTW, the woman who STARTED Roe v. Wade has since come out opposing the case and started the process to have it overturned, NOT the judges. SHE wants it overturned. A woman. So much for "men" trying to control women's bodies.

Do you agree with Clinton -- who used the Oval Office for sexual favors and deserved to be impeached for lying to Federal Prosecutors. Oh, but you must, right? Cause you "agree with your leader." Whatever.

Liberal versus conservative: You're either one or the other. Somebody who's looking for a fight takes offense. Somebody who's secure in their beliefs does NOT need to defend themselves and will not be offended by a nickname. I'M A RIGHT-WING CONSERVATIVE AND PROUD OF IT.

So, now you're telling us that we're wrong for believing what we do. Tough. You're a bully with too much time on his/her hands.

Milt Palacio · 10-12-2004, 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Wes&FredFan
-- I have the tape of it, where he tried to bow down to pro-lifers (ME) by saying "it IS murder, but ...."

Now, I have never posted on this thread before but I just wanted to point out that Kerry never said this.

I also have the 2nd debate on tape and watched it in its entirety yesterday.

Katis · 10-12-2004, 04:49 PM

Well all right, back to nice, friendly not debating discussion.

I'm finding it funny when people tell me that I am being brainwashed by my family, influenced by the media, or convinced by professors and friends, etc that Bush is good and Kerry is evil. Considering that I live in one of the three most liberal cities in the country, practically on the second most liberal college campus in the country, and my advisor is a socialist. I mean yesterday we were talking in my Amercian Foreign Policy class about the politics of Madison (where I live) and I mentioned that Madison isn't really indicative of any other city in the country and my professor just laughed and said, "Of course. Madison would elext Karl Marx if it could."

I don't have time to watch mainstream media very often so I get most of my news from the internet or my professors. I have like 3 conservative friends, the rest are democrats or apathetic. My family are republicans but I find it hard to see how they are brainwashing me about something I am more informed about than they are. I mean it's a hobby for them, I'm a poli sci major, I go to class and learn about this stuff all the time. I'm more educated about it than they are not to mention more conservative than both of my parents.

And yet...I am being brainwashed by my surroundings. Hm.

mh67511 · 10-13-2004, 03:29 PM

Excellent piece, Shut Up and Teach!

Katis · 10-13-2004, 04:11 PM

What in the hell is wrong with that professor? I would have stood out and walked out of that oppressive, hateful, arrogant, and condescending class and told that "professor" to shove it. Well I would have wanted to anyway. At the least I would have lodged a formal complaint againt him. Who does he think he is? Automatically assuming that his position is correct? Gah! I am so pissed off right now, probably because he reminds me of people on my campus. What a %$^%!!

JW77 · 10-13-2004, 08:15 PM

My favorite part is the "things to stay away from"...

"Anything you're already convinced of before you start your research, especially subjects you're emotionally involved in. My reasoning is that with such a topic you would not be able to see that there is another side and this would destroy your argument."

That's just funny to me.

mh67511 · 10-13-2004, 08:35 PM

That's so ridiculous. Just because someone is emotionally involved with something does not mean they don't see the other side. Not to mention the fact that I know NO ONE who has NO emotional involvement with any issue.

I am opposed to them bringing casinos to Nebraska, which is a big issue here. The main reason is because my grandpa is addicted to gambling so I have seen the terrible effects it has on families. That is emotional involvement, but it DOESN'T mean that I don't see the points the pro-gambling side tries to make, but I just don't agree with them.

But with this professor not agreeing with the opposing side pretty much equals not seeing their side or the points they make.

JW77 · 10-13-2004, 08:47 PM

Here's an interesting article...it was written by Sharon Smith for the Socialist Worker.

Quote:

Barak O-Bomb-a?

Democrats’ Obama ready to bomb Iran

John Kerry's antiwar supporters have repeatedly warned that a military attack on Iran is imminent if George Bush is reelected. But Democrats are rattling their sabers at the same target.

On September 24, Barack Obama--the Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate from Illinois, and a shoo-in favorite--suggested "surgical missile strikes" on Iran may become necessary. "[L]aunching some missile strikes into Iran is not the optimal position for us to be in" given the ongoing war in Iraq, Obama told the Chicago Tribune.

"On the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse," he said. Obama went on to argue that military strikes on Pakistan should not be ruled out if "violent Islamic extremists" were to "take over."

A U.S. strike on Iran could well open up a new war front. When the CIA and Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) conducted a recent series of war games involving an attack on Iran, an Air Force source told Newsweek, "The war games were unsuccessful at preventing the conflict from escalating."

Why would Obama, whose staunch opposition to the Iraq war made him a hero among Democratic Party liberals, consider attacking Iran? Obama--a keynote speaker at the Democratic Party Convention--has a bright future in the Democratic Party. And the Democratic Party is a war party.

Obama opposes immediate withdrawal from Iraq. His positions are entirely consistent with the Democratic Party's platform, which explicitly puts Iran on notice: "[A] nuclear-armed Iran is an unacceptable risk to us and our allies...With John Kerry as commander-in-chief, we will never wait for a green light from abroad when our safety is at stake."

During the first presidential debate, Kerry appeared eager to stress his willingness to "go it alone" when asked his opinion about "pre-emptive war." "The president always has the right and always has had the right for pre-emptive strike," declared Kerry, adding, "That was a great doctrine throughout the Cold War."

This comment will have shocked those who recall the decades-long standoff between the U.S. and former USSR quite differently--as a period when a "first strike" by either side could easily have led to "mutual assured destruction." "Pre-emptive war" is the centerpiece of the Bush Doctrine, announced to the world after September 11.

To be sure, Kerry made no fewer than 27 allusions to allies, the United Nations, summits and treaties during the debate--and continued to insist that the invasion of Iraq was a mistake. But when asked, "Are Americans now dying in Iraq for a mistake?" Kerry's answer was "No." Kerry proceeded to outline his strategy for winning, by "beginning to not back off of Falluja and other places and send the wrong message to terrorists...You've got to show you're serious."

This strategy, right-wing New York Times columnist William Safire eagerly pointed out, "requires us to inflict and accept higher casualties." This also happens to be the strategy Bush is now pursuing in Iraq.

Kerry promises to begin replacing U.S. troops with Iraqi forces next summer, with a complete U.S. pullout by the end of his first term. This strategy, known as "Vietnamization" in 1968, was the campaign slogan of Richard Nixon--denounced by the antiwar movement, John Kerry among them, when it proved to be a colossal failure.

Kerry's argument that the invasion of Iraq was "the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time" is a sleight of hand. This is not an antiwar statement. On the contrary, it is an argument that the Iraq war was a distraction from the "real" war on terrorism--in Afghanistan, Iran, North Korea and elsewhere.

Kerry's strategy is a recipe for more war--by crushing the resistance in Iraq and taking aim at other targets in the years ahead, a strategy not very different from Bush's. As Safire gloated after the debate, ""His abandoned antiwar supporters...shut their eyes to Kerry's hard-line, right-wing, unilateral, pre-election policy epiphany." The debate is not between pro-war Republicans and antiwar Democrats, but over which war in which place at which time will better advance the global aims of U.S. imperialism.

WalkingOnSunshine · 10-14-2004, 06:09 AM

I am going to read those above posted articles tomorrow too tired right now. Did someone on this thread mentioned they were having trouble sleeping? I can totally relate. I have been stressing too much lately with school and it is affecting my sleep. And then I get so tired but cannot sleep - it is a strange cycle.

Anyway lol - what did you all think about the debate? I thought Bush did extremely well. i wished he would have performed all the three debates the way he did tonight. I was proud of him. I think he really showed his will and resolve. As well, he came across as strong and yet approachable. When he was talking about how he & Laura met and his love for his family - it was just touching. I was quite happy with tonight's debate.

I had to contact the DC division for the College Republicans because the department here had their information stolen from the offices. Nothing big just plans about rallies next week oh well. Seems the closer the election gets the dirtier the tricks and stunts.

Oh i meant to post this earlier but do any of you go to 7-11? I usually stop there sometime during the day to get newspapers and coffee. Well they have started an "election 2004 coffee campaign". All that means is that they have coffee cups that are decorated for either Bush or Kerry. It is kind of cute I think. I always of course get my Bush coffee cup and try to check out others to see what cup they have.

I was fixing my coffee this morning and a guy came in and wasn't paying attention and grabbed a cup. I noticed he picked up a Kerry coffee cup so I wasn't pleased lol but I didn't say anything. He started to pour his coffee and looked at the cup and goes "well hell, i didn't want this one." And he got a Bush cup! I smiled at him and we went on our happy way with our coffee cups!

relaxi_cab · 10-14-2004, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Wes&FredFan
Liberal versus conservative: You're either one or the other. Somebody who's looking for a fight takes offense. Somebody who's secure in their beliefs does NOT need to defend themselves and will not be offended by a nickname. I'M A RIGHT-WING CONSERVATIVE AND PROUD OF IT.

There you go again. It is the same thing that Bush does. He always labels people and always says that there are only 2 possibilities for everything. The whole you're either with us or your against us is bull*****. There is always a neutral, or the people who dont care. And with ybortion there are also multipe views. You are against it, or you are for it. But I am neither. I dont think that it is a good thing, but if people want to have an abortion, I wont stop them. If there are no religious reasons (or other reasons) to them for not having an abortion, then they should go ahead. Not everyone is a Christian.

mh67511 · 10-14-2004, 04:17 PM

I only saw part of the debate and it was the part about Social Security! I wish Bush would have pointed out that...KERRY HAS NO PLAN. Kerry's Social Security plan is to "wait until a problem develops then fix it." Bush's plan is it to start solving the problem NOW. Yes partially privatizing Social Security WILL BE EXPENSIVE. But the fact is if we wait and do NOTHIGN now but talk, which is all Kerry plans on doing, the problem will continue to get worse.

I read a statistic once that if nothing is done to Social Security, in 2075 it would take up 68% of the entire federal budget. That is a LOT of money.

There is no reason why I, as a young person who pays MORE in Social Security taxes (which benefit 42 million Americans) than income taxes (whihc benefit ALL Americans), should not have ANY control over MY retirement.

Essentially the government is taking and is planning on taking THOUSANDS of dollars of MY MONEY over the course of my lifetime and in return they CLAIM they will give me money at retirement. Now I'm sorry but I do NOT trust the government that much.

Did you know...the government has no legal obligation to give anyone anything? In fact, the government only has to give what Congress deems appropriate! Theoretically, although it would most likely not happen, Congress could say "no more benefits" and there is nothing we can do because they have reserved that right. There is no legal or financial obligation, only a promise. And promises can be and are often broken. I find it scary that they could take, say $30K of my money over the course of my lifetime, with the intent of giving me retirement benefits, then turn around and say, "sorry we're in a budget crisis, you get nada."

Thief Of Love · 10-15-2004, 04:33 PM

Quote:

"[A] nuclear-armed Iran is an unacceptable risk to us and our allies...With John Kerry as commander-in-chief, we will never wait for a green light from abroad when our safety is at stake."

The heck??? So, first Bush is attacked by the Democrats for not waiting on the UN, France, etc. before the Iraq war, but Kerry will be seen as a hero if he does the same thing in regard to Iran? Or am I misunderstanding the application of "abroad" in this context, perhaps meaning that Kerry won't wait for Iran to say, "Come on in, bomb us!"

JW77 · 10-15-2004, 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Thief Of Love
The heck??? So, first Bush is attacked by the Democrats for not waiting on the UN, France, etc. before the Iraq war, but Kerry will be seen as a hero if he does the same thing in regard to Iran? Or am I misunderstanding the application of "abroad" in this context, perhaps meaning that Kerry won't wait for Iran to say, "Come on in, bomb us!"

It's very strange, but yeah, that's the way it goes.

Lexis · 10-15-2004, 08:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Thief Of Love
The heck??? So, first Bush is attacked by the Democrats for not waiting on the UN, France, etc. before the Iraq war, but Kerry will be seen as a hero if he does the same thing in regard to Iran? Or am I misunderstanding the application of "abroad" in this context, perhaps meaning that Kerry won't wait for Iran to say, "Come on in, bomb us!"

I think the issue is that President Bush didn't wait for the UN (including France) and it subsequently turned out that the primary reason for going to war (WMD's) was untrue at worst, inaccurate at best.

If Iran proves itself to be a threat to the US (which Iraq has not been), then although I think the UN would approve action against them (as they did when Afghanistan was shown -in the most horrible way possible - to be a threat), if they didn't for whatever reason, John Kerry would defend America's interests.