Is anyone out there STILL a Republican?

[Cryozombie]

The entire governmen needs a general weeding all the way around.

An Enima.

 

[Flying Crane]

An Enima.

a weed enima

 

[Rich Parsons]

Is there anyone who can proudly proclaim being a Republican?

Well as I believe in the US Constitution, and the current structure of Government, then I would say I am a Republican. Because no one can be a Democrat, as NOT ALL ISSUES are decided by the COMMON VOTE. The is Democracy. This is a republic.

Now if you are talking about the current political party that uses the term Republican, then I would say No, as the part does not want me.

What would Lincoln think?

Not sure I never talked to him. What would Jefferson or Hamilton think about the current parties?

 

[jdinca]

You're right. The democratic party has always been one of restraint, civility and puritanical behavior. I think you need to look at history and not a snapshot of what the world is like at this moment.

Lincoln would probably be unhappy. Back then, the Democrats were the conservative party.

If Clinton had taken Bin Laden when Sudan offered him on a silver platter back in the '96, or given authorization to pull the trigger when he was in our sights a couple of years later, there's every reason to think that 9/11 wouldn't have happened and much of this would be moot. Both sides make mistakes, both side have some pretty stupid ideas. It's important to look behind the headlines, hype and sound bites and make an informed decision.

I'll give you one other volatile example to make my point. Everyone feels that Bush "stole" the election in 2000, yet EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THE DOZEN RECOUNTS SHOW THAT HE WON IN FLORIDA!!! Even those sponsored by media orginizations that were hoping for just the opposite. Well that really doesn't matter, Gore won the popular vote. So everybody jumps on this as proof that Bush cheated and stole the election. Hmm, ever read the Constitution? The electoral college format is in there and has been for a VERY LONG TIME. Popular vote is not how we elect a President in this country and you can't blame Bush. He doesn't, didn't, nor ever will have the ability to change the Constitution for his own purposes.

If you formed your opinion on what the left wing of the media had to say, the headlines and the sound bites, then your opinion would still be that he stole it, even though the facts show the exact opposite. I prefer to make my decisions based as much as possible on facts, not emotional rhetoric.

:argue:

 

[BlueDragon1981]

Once again....these arguments have fueled my argument that the political party system is simply causing a great inefficiency in politics. People refuse to look at each others side. Both parties do bad things. Just now they are looking at each other and trying to get whatever position they can on the others....and honestly i don't think this is a good way of getting things done. I think that this is why we need to re-examine politics in this country.

The republicans have messed up a lot...but a republican can't admit it. Often is the same for the dems. This will be the demise of this country. We will fall if these remains.

As for the charges against the republicans I do believe they all have at least some truth to them. Special interest groups will do a lot to get a lawmaker in there that is going to make things better for them. Also show me how much money the tax cuts have put into the economy. Is it anything compared to what the national debt has gone up. I don't think so. It still has to be paid back and who will do that .... the people. Heaven forbid a republican fallow a democrat budget. Heaven forbid the dems raise questions against the republicans because you know they are always right....and vice versa.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Today we learn the Republican President has unleashed the National Security Agency on illegal monitoring of United States citizens.

Yes, a few hundred people living in the US. Though, it's a reach to say that all or most are US citizens. The majority are aliens, illegal and otherwise, suspected of links to al-Qaeda.

My take would be that monitoring the phone calls of 500 people in the US is no worse a charge than the Clinton Justice department abuses where they sent the FBI and ATF to shoot women holding babies and burn up large numbers of children in the name of pursuing people the Clinton Administration perceived as dangerous. I guess it's all in your perspective.

The former Majority Leader in the House of Representatives is under indictment for money laundering.

Wasn't he under indictment on other charges as well? They seem to have disappeared. I guess the hope is to keep the indictment alive as long as possible, to get the maximum benefit of publicity out of it...then drop it in the middle of the night.

The Senate Majority Leader is being investigate by the Securities and Exchange Commission for insider trading in his families company... a publicly traded firm over which is Senate position wielded influence.

Again, 'investigated' is not the same as convicted. I have a long political memory. Surely you don't think 'accused' means 'guilty'. Can anyone say 'White Water'?

I remember when Congressman used to write themselves bad checks at the Captial bank.

A long-time Republican Congressman has pleaded guilty to receiving more than 2 million dollars in bribes.

That's one of the differences between Republicans and Democrats. Republicans plead guilty when caught. Democrats blame a 'Vast right wing conspiracy'. Or, they just leave the girl dead in the car and walk home.

Is there anyone who can proudly proclaim being a Republican?

Sure beats being a Democrat. [/quote]

What would Lincoln think?

Well, since even many small minded, short sighted political hacks, even in the north burned Lincoln's image in effigy while he was alive, and they demanded he be removed from office because of the civil war, I think he'd say that business is continuing as usual.

I think those who invoke the name of Lincoln on this subject, forget he probably couldn't have walked through the streets of New York City at the height of the civil without an army to protect him. It was only after it was over that a lot of morons said, "See, I knew it was the right thing to do the whole time." Yeah, right. Again, not much has changed.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln
"The Democrats, hoping to make setbacks in the war a top campaign issue, waited until late summer to nominate a candidate. Their platform was heavily influenced by the Peace wing of the party, calling the war a "failure," but their candidate, former General George McClellan, was a War Democrat, determined to prosecute the war until the Union was restored, although willing to compromise on all other issues, including slavery."


"During the Civil War, Lincoln exercised powers no previous president had wielded; he proclaimed a blockade, suspended the writ of habeas corpus, spent money without congressional authorization, and frequently imprisoned accused Southern spies and sympathizers without trial. Some scholars have argued that Lincoln's political arrests extended to the highest levels of the government, including an attempted warrant for Chief Justice Roger Brooke Taney, though the allegation remains unresolved and controversial (see the Taney Arrest Warrant controversy)."


Contemperaries viewed Lincoln as a potential tyrant. History remembers him as a liberator. The Democrats at that time, too, were eager to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Ironic you should invoke Lincoln.

 

[BlueDragon1981]

Only the people doing the recounts know the facts for sure. Unless you were there you may not know the facts specially in politics.

Vote records are skewed. People put small clauses in a bill to go along with the main purpose of the law. In order to vote for the law that they want they have to also accept another even though they may not wholey agree with it.

I believe that the election process should be re-examined, but if i mention it i will be accussed of emotional rhetoric....and not looking at the facts. Perception of fact is not always truth.

 

[Phoenix44]

Social and fiscal conservative? So, you mean, smaller government? Like, get the government off the people's backs? Fiscal restraint? No "nation-building"? Is that what you like about the Republican party?

Well, not THIS Republican party. They spend profligately. The debt has never been this huge in our history. They intrude in the private lives of Americans as never before (Can you say "Schiavo"? How about "sneak and peek"?) And they are spending our money and lives nation-building in Iraq. This Republican Party is neither fiscally nor socially conservative. This Republican Party is RADICAL and headstrong.

And the most disturbing thing about it is that the Republican Congress has shown no sense of responsibility or morality. They KNOW the administration is not representing Republican or conservative values, but the craven little toadies just go along with it.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Social and fiscal conservative? So, you mean, smaller government? Like, get the government off the people's backs? Fiscal restraint? No "nation-building"? Is that what you like about the Republican party?

Well, not THIS Republican party. They spend profligately. The debt has never been this huge in our history. They intrude in the private lives of Americans as never before (Can you say "Schiavo"? How about "sneak and peek"?) And they are spending our money and lives nation-building in Iraq. This Republican Party is neither fiscally nor socially conservative. This Republican Party is RADICAL and headstrong.

And the most disturbing thing about it is that the Republican Congress has shown no sense of responsibility or morality. They KNOW the administration is not representing Republican or conservative values, but the craven little toadies just go along with it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln
"The Democrats, hoping to make setbacks in the war a top campaign issue, waited until late summer to nominate a candidate. Their platform was heavily influenced by the Peace wing of the party, calling the war a "failure," but their candidate, former General George McClellan, was a War Democrat, determined to prosecute the war until the Union was restored, although willing to compromise on all other issues, including slavery."

"During the Civil War, Lincoln exercised powers no previous president had wielded; he proclaimed a blockade, suspended the writ of habeas corpus, spent money without congressional authorization, and frequently imprisoned accused Southern spies and sympathizers without trial. Some scholars have argued that Lincoln's political arrests extended to the highest levels of the government, including an attempted warrant for Chief Justice Roger Brooke Taney, though the allegation remains unresolved and controversial (see the Taney Arrest Warrant controversy)."


A little deeper knowledge of history yields some valuable lessons.

 

[jdinca]

Only the people doing the recounts know the facts for sure. Unless you were there you may not know the facts specially in politics.

One recount, yes, two recounts, yes, a dozen requested and paid for by different organizations, including the New York Times? Not a chance.

If the country decides we want to amend the Constitution to allow a popular vote for President, then okay. But until then, don't trash the candidate because the Constitution handed him a victory. Trash your own party for not doing a good enough job with their campaign.

Although I liked my jerk in the Presidential race better than I liked your jerk, the fact remains that the two party system in this country is just...flat...broken. Lump into that a media that is not only obviously biased but also hates reporting positive news unless they have to because, in this country, negative sells.

:bazook:

 

[michaeledward]

So, would the Republicans in the house please tell me what they think of their party?

I mean, I understand you're all pissed off that Clinton couldn't get indicted with anything other than oral sex. And everything wrong in the whole world is all his fault anyhow .... but ...

Can someone in the Republican Party please defend the actions of the President for me?

Why is it that you are willing to lay aside the fourth amendment to the Constitution?

sgtmac_46 ... how many illegal survaillances would it take for you to say it is wrong?

The New York Times put Judith Millers erroneous news stories on the front page (fed to her, apparently by Irving Libby) ... The White House asks that they withhold publishing the story about the 4th Amendment, and the New York Times complies? Seems to me, the President, and his adminstration are pissing on the First Amendment too.

How many Citizens can be detained for three years without due process before it is wrong?

How many foriegners can be abducted, rendered to countries that torture, illegally, or held in secret prisons before a Republican will stand up and say "THIS IS WRONG!" ?

Where is the line between fighting a 'War on Terror' and being a 'War Criminal?

 

[Phoenix44]

sgtmac, thanks for that interesting commentary on President Lincoln's actions in the 1800s from that authoritative scholarly source, wikipedia. However, I fail to see what that has to do with today's Republican Party, nor what it has to do with the poster who said he's a Republican because he is a social and fiscal conservative, which is clearly not what today's Republican Party represents.

If Clinton had taken Bin Laden when Sudan offered him on a silver platter

Boy am I getting tired of hearing that old talking point. That falsehood was invented, and repeated, by Fox News' Sean Hannity. In fact, Bin Laden found a very comfortable home in Sudan for years under the Turadi Islamist regime. Bin Laden had many investments in Sudan, through which he administered his terrorist activities. Bin Laden began to lose favor in Sudan when western nations began to pressure Sudan to stop its policy of state sponsored terrorism. Sudan wanted to send Bin Laden back to Saudi Arabia, but by that point, Saudi wanted no part of him. So he went to Afghanistan. Sudan's Islamic fundamentalist government never offered Bin Laden to the United States. I'd suggest you read the 9/11 Commission Report if you want a more scholarly description...or you can just listen to Sean Hannity.

 

[sgtmac_46]

So, would the Republicans in the house please tell me what they think of their party?

I think I already did. It's a darn sight better than anything the Dems are likely to put forward.

I mean, I understand you're all pissed off that Clinton couldn't get indicted with anything other than oral sex. And everything wrong in the whole world is all his fault anyhow .... but ...

Did I say anything about Monica. I think I said 'White Water'. Being accused doesn't make you guilty, does it? It's ironic that the Dems wrote off everything as a 'vast right wing conspiracy'.

Can someone in the Republican Party please defend the actions of the President for me?

In general? I think we've had debate after debate on this very topic. Refer to them.

Why is it that you are willing to lay aside the fourth amendment to the Constitution?

sgtmac_46 ... how many illegal survaillances would it take for you to say it is wrong?

The numbers are irrelavent. You haven't given a specific situation where someone was surveilled. As usually, you're relying on vague innuendo to make a point. I think the details of this situation would likely be shown to have justified these surveillance. It's ironic that many on the left have criticized the administration for not having done more about arab nationals taking flight school classes. If we had averted 9/11, however, you'd be complaining that the US government had overstepped it's bounds in investigating and surveilling those 'poor flight school students'.

You'll deny this, but the current surveillance situation is very much like that.

The New York Times put Judith Millers erroneous news stories on the front page (fed to her, apparently by Irving Libby) ... The White House asks that they withhold publishing the story about the 4th Amendment, and the New York Times complies? Seems to me, the President, and his adminstration are pissing on the First Amendment too.

Pissing on the 1st Amendment because the New York Times decided to honor a request? Seems you may some issues with reality.

How many Citizens can be detained for three years without due process before it is wrong?

Why don't you ask Lincoln. You seemed to hold him in such high esteem.

How many foriegners can be abducted, rendered to countries that torture, illegally, or held in secret prisons before a Republican will stand up and say "THIS IS WRONG!" ?

If by 'foreigners' you mean terrorists, then you're barking up the wrong tree with me.

Where is the line between fighting a 'War on Terror' and being a 'War Criminal?

We've far from crossed that line. It's probably along the lines of authorizing federal agents to shoot American women holding young children and burning up buildings full of American children...in the name of attacking 'extremists'. It's funny how leftists never complained when it was Americans getting killed by the Clinton Justice Department. I guess that was ok, because Janet Reno was calling the shots.

 

[sgtmac_46]

sgtmac, thanks for that interesting commentary on President Lincoln's actions in the 1800s from that authoritative scholarly source, wikipedia. However, I fail to see what that has to do with today's Republican Party, nor what it has to do with the poster who said he's a Republican because he is a social and fiscal conservative, which is clearly not what today's Republican Party represents.

Your backhanded attempt to ridicule wikipedia, and insinuate that the statement was false, is a facitious argument. I use wikipedia only when the information contained in it is not in any dispute (as this is not on the part of any serious historian). The resistance to Lincoln among many in the north, at the height of the civil war, is well documented.

And, if you FAIL to see what Lincoln has to do with this, you obviously didn't read the post that started this thread. Please refer to that. If Michael wants to invoke Lincoln, and accuse others of being ignorant of history, he should educate himself on the matter. It was Michael, not me, who brought Lincoln in to this, deciding to compare Lincoln with the current Repubican administration. I was just clarifying a few points.

Boy am I getting tired of hearing that old talking point. That falsehood was invented, and repeated, by Fox News' Sean Hannity. In fact, Bin Laden found a very comfortable home in Sudan for years under the Turadi Islamist regime. Bin Laden had many investments in Sudan, through which he administered his terrorist activities. Bin Laden began to lose favor in Sudan when western nations began to pressure Sudan to stop its policy of state sponsored terrorism. Sudan wanted to send Bin Laden back to Saudi Arabia, but by that point, Saudi wanted no part of him. So he went to Afghanistan. Sudan's Islamic fundamentalist government never offered Bin Laden to the United States. I'd suggest you read the 9/11 Commission Report if you want a more scholarly description...or you can just listen to Sean Hannity.

I'm sure you are tired of hearing that point. I note, again, your attempt to use ad hominem arguments, by attacking what you perceive as the 'source' of that story, by ridiculing Hannity instead. The idea being, if you can link the story to Hannity, all you have to do is ridicule Hannity to discredit the story.

The reality, however, is that Hannity didn't invent this story. The story came from a man who personally attempted to negotate the deal with the Clinton administration, Mansoor Ijaz. Though, i'm sure you are correct in stating that you are tired of hearing this. I'm sure Clinton wishes it would die as well. But the truth is the truth. Your entire basis for arguing that it didn't occur, is that the Clinton adminstration 'denys it'. Well, no kidding. Yet another 'vast right wing conspiracy'.

Personally, I think allowing a man who was directly behind trying to blow up the World Trade Center once already, not to mention killing hundreds in Africa and around the world, and having declared a terrorist war against the united states, to run free, when you could pick him up, pretty much trumps the asinine allegations leveled against Bush on this matter.

Had Clinton done what was necessary during the 8 years he was in office, it is likely George Bush would have been a one term president. Instead, Clinton treated the issue like a Janet Reno justice department issue. Reno, for her part, thought bin Laden wasn't as big a deal as Branch Davidians and those folks living at Ruby Ridge. So, I really don't want to hear about how Bush's actions are violating the rights of Americans. Lets hear some names of those law abiding Americans Bush has violated the rights of. I guess it always sounds better in the vague and abstract, huh.

Had Reno went after the terrorists like she went after Americans, we would have never had a 9/11. The terrorists would be been burnt out of Afghanistan.

Best to allow Mr. Ijaz say, in his own words, the problems created by the Clinton administration.



"As an American Muslim and a political supporter of Clinton, I feel now, as I argued with Clinton and Berger then, that their counter-terrorism policies fueled the rise of Bin Laden from an ordinary man to a Hydra-like monster."

"Clinton's failure to grasp the opportunity to unravel increasingly organized extremists, coupled with Berger's assessments of their potential to directly threaten the U.S., represents one of the most serious foreign policy failures in American history."

http://www.infowars.com/saved%20pages/Prior_Knowledge/Clinton_let_bin_laden.htm



http://www.nationalreview.com/ijaz/ijaz200403230855.asp

http://www.nationalreview.com/ijaz/ijaz200404150832.asp



All that having been said, I have no interest in engaging a further generalized debate on every facet of the Bush administration. I've opposed some of it's policies, and supported others. If we want to debate individual policies, pick one, i'd be more than happy to debate, at length, any particular police mentioned. What I don't have a desire to do is debate every single thing that the Bush administration has done in the last 6 years. That's nothing but an 'I hate Bush, try and defend him' game.

 

[FearlessFreep]

A challenge:

Listen to 'right wing radio' for a week, and only that. Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage,e tc...
Listen to 'left wing radio' for a week, and only that. Randy Rhodes (sp), Ed Shultz(sp), Al Franken, etc...


and then tell me they live on the same planet and are actually talking about the same people. It's surreal...

 

[sgtmac_46]

A challenge:

Listen to 'right wing radio' for a week, and only that. Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage,e tc...
Listen to 'left wing radio' for a week, and only that. Randy Rhodes (sp), Ed Shultz(sp), Al Franken, etc...


and then tell me they live on the same planet and are actually talking about the same people. It's surreal...

You've got that right. Two entirely different planets. Of course Michael Savage has a lot more in common with the left wing (nut) radio personalities you listed.

If you're going to compare equal positions on the left and right, Savage is equally vitriolic with Rhodes and Franken.

Franken, I find amusing, because he writes a book about 'lying liars', in which he does nothing BUT lie, and then dismisses his need to tell the truth by calling himself 'a humorist'. It's Franken's claims at having a sense of humor I find most insulting, however. Two words...'Stewart Smalley'.

At least he's not making lame Saturday Night Live skits anymore. Anyone who claims Franken was every funny....should seek professional help.

Hannity is kind of a little preachy, and not a very good debator.

I find Limbaugh humorous, even if I don't agree with him about 30% of the time. He at least doesn't act like he takes it all as seriously, and he gets a kick out of the left hating him. In fact, there is no name that pushes up leftist blood pressure more than Limbaugh (except maybe, now, Hannity).

Personally, none of the above listed are radio personalities that reflect my politics very well at all. I find myself liking that lessor known radio personality Jim Bohannon, over those on this list. I end up agreeing with him about 98% of the time...(Hey, he can't be right all the time!)

 

[Phoenix44]

Reno, for her part, thought bin Laden wasn't as big a deal as Branch Davidians

Yeah, she must have thought AT LEAST as much of Bin Laden as Bush does:

Well, as I say, we haven't heard much from him. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him.

(by the way, that comes right from whitehouse.gov, not from Randi Rhodes)

I don't know...maybe if Bush had EVEN ONE principals' meeting to discuss terrorism sometime between 1/20/01 and 9/11/01. Or maybe if he had bothered to read the PDB entitled "Bin Laden determined to strike in US." That probably would have been at least as relevant as Janet Reno's actions in 1993. Richard Clarke thought Bin Laden was a VERY big deal. But Bush didn't meet with him either.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Just an aside on the "Lincoln" issue:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/w-williams1.html

Good book.

It also unfortunately indicates several parallels with todays America.
- Unpopular war
- President who is granted new powers
- Corruption within the inner circle and congress
- Unlawful imprisonments and exiles of citizens

and points to the laying of the groundwork that resulted in the building of todays bloated, top heavy bureaucracy thats constantly giving bailouts to businesses that have enough lobbies ts.

I realize that the parties have "switched sides" at least once in the past 100+ years, but I think today especially, the "platforms" are rarely more than a sound byte to get your vote. Regardless of who wins, theres always a long list of why they couldn't do something, usually pointing at the other party.

I don't know if those currently being accused of wrongdoing are guilty. I highly doubt they are completely innocent though. I think 1 term is all they should be allowed...would stop some of the issues I think.

 

[Kane]

I ain't no Republican, never have and never will be (registered independent) I however do vote Republican many times and did vote for Bush. I have to say though I'm getting quite disappointed with the guy. Then again Bush maybe at has lowest point. Clinton had the same low approval rating at a time so I guess Bush may turn things around soon, hopefully.

I would vote libertarion but as we all know they are only a minority party and don't want to waste my vote.

 

[Henderson]

I claim no affiliation to one party. I refuse to label myself like that.

Respects,

Frank