PDA

View Full Version : Democrat or Republican?


MechaBlue
07-25-2002, 05:08 AM
Time for all you Americans to elect a new congressman. Which party are you voting for and why?

4_8x6
07-25-2002, 05:23 AM
in my opinion, they (the two main parties) are just two heads of the same beast, although frankly, i'd like to see the congress go back to the democrats just so the oil industry, i mean 'white house' has some sort of a restraint in place instead of eroding our constitution bit by bit.

just to put my view in perspective (ie i'm not a liberal just looking for conservative blood), i also believe clinton should have been removed from office and/or jailed when he lied under oath. the sooner Dubya and Dick and the rest of corporate america are removed from public office, the better i'll feel.

here's to the constitution.

mistered
07-26-2002, 08:39 PM
I grew up in an extreme-right community (and could tell you many stories).

I have lived in 11 or 12 states and seen it all (and could tell you many stories).

I spent 25 years in an extreme-left community (and could tell you many stories).

I now live in a democratic community which is far-right (and i could tell you stories).

After all my experiences and moving back into the Right Wing controlled enviroment i will only vote republican when i deem it absolutely necessary.

I voted for GWB only because the left had dwindled our military too-much and i felt fearful something major was coming and to have a texan republican in office (in that context) seemed proper. Turned out i was correct in my assumption.

I am uncertain now which way to lean. But i will figure it out. I think GW has almost served his purpose (and probably too well).

So: Is it just me or is there a lot of deceit going on behind the curtain?
And who's deceit (Left/Right) is the most damaging???

Leg0nd
07-29-2002, 06:17 PM
I grew up in Oklahoma like most people in Ok I grew up conservative (The movie Varsity Blues can VERY accurately describe my community I grew up in).. Anyway I like bush alright but I think it would have been better to run Donald Rumsfield everybody likes that guy.. well, except Al Gore.

It seems the stock market is starting to rise again and may bite the dems in the butt in Nov. Without a stagnant economy they don't have anything to bash republicans for ya know?

I don't have to worry about my state voting conservative, lets hope everyone else sees the light too.... lol i'm really trying not to be an ass.

4_8x6
07-30-2002, 07:11 PM
at the risk of starting a debate...

Without a stagnant economy they don't have anything to bash republicans for ya know?

there's plenty for people to be upset about, but normally, unless it bites them in the pocketbook, they don't care. "don't mess up my good time" this was demonstrated quite clearly with the Clinton's lying under oath (consequently, i believe he should have been jailed like you or i would have been).

from bush riding on Enron/Ken Lay's private jet during his campaign in 2000, to halliburton (possible accounting fraud thanks to good old arthur anderson/cheney (halliburton's former CEO and Chairman)sweet heart deals to go in and fix the damage to the kuwaiti oil wells) to bush's shady dealings when sitting on the board of harken energy, to the creation of our new propaganda, er, "Office of Communications", the "Patriot Act", to our continued presence in the middle east to protect "freedom" (read:Big Oil interests such as the new pipeline that former Unocal representative/current Afghan President Hamid Karzai readily approved after it had been shelved by the taliban). this is the same administration that admitted that an invasion plan was on president bush's desk the day before 9/11 and had threatened that the taliban could have either "a carpet of gold or you'll get a carpet of bombs."

this is the same president that ordered the fbi to stand down on its investigation into terrorist activitites and caused the FBI's Former Deputy Director John O'Neill (who died in the WTC attack) to resign in disgust.

the facts aren't hard to find, one just has to look a little.

Sizemeister
07-30-2002, 08:03 PM
I find that though my views are more conservative-centered, that I usually end up not deciding who I want until down to the wire election time. I am one of the "disenfranchised" bunch. I haven't seen any good choices for any of the offices I am eligible to vote for since I turned 18. Damned if you do, damned if you don't, they are almost always equally as bad. I end up basing my decision on what I think will happen during the person's term and how he will handle it. Like mistered, I thought there was certainly something brewing that would require millatary response and felt safer with Bush since he probably wouldn't funnel $ away from the millitary.

I shudder to think how Al Bore and his staff would have handled the 9/11 attacks or any subsequent threats.

twatteaser
07-30-2002, 10:43 PM
Moral of the story is : None of the above for the vast majority of people.

What can I say?

I view myself as middle of the road as possible.

Though the liberal people complain of a conservative agenda sweeping the media.

And the conservatives always damn the liberal media.

No one is always satisfied.

From my limited understanding: Oil is the largest industry on the planet. Drugs if counted legitamly overshadow this just in the narcotics sense of the world. Everything runs of oil. Or costs $ with oil to get to you. My #s may be off though, it has been a few years since i was up on this.

Leg0nd
07-31-2002, 10:04 AM
Oil is probably aways going to be a big industry.. people, its always going to be there whether you like it or not. Now, maybe 70-150 years down the road people might start the slow transisition of using electric cars, etc. but even then i don't see the oil endustry put out of business (which is what alot of people seem to want ) And a good thing, millions of people around the world would be without jobs.

Anyway its unfair to critize one party for some of its people being involved in or having stocks in Oil. its a good way to make money.

Albert Gore has stocks in some oil companies as well. But i'm not going to critize im for it because a LOT of people have stocks in oil.

Anyhoo i've came expect that no matter what you do in this country 50% will agee and 50% will disagree.. so I'm glad bush doesn't listen to the polls and does what he thinks is right on abortion, religion, family values, the middle east, the military, homeland security , death penalty, the easter bunny , santa clause, his elfs, etc. It would be a mistake if he spent all of his time trying to please some of the far leftists who are never pleased until their welfare checks come in.

I' gona get reamed for that huh?

4_8x6
08-01-2002, 03:15 PM
i won't. i don't think there are many people on either side of the fence (at least who are high on the political food chain) who can be trusted. i think gore would probably be just as bad, but since he's not currently determining how i'm going to be living, i'm worried about bush.

as far as being a good way to make money, that seems to be the battle cry for a significant number of people, consequences be damned. that seems to be the only way things change, is if it hits the majority's pocket book. then we want someone's head on a platter. if we weren't so reliant on oil (ie the oil lobby wasn't so influential) there'd be little reason for us to be in the middle east, we'd have far less people upset with us for basically invading their land, and we wouldn't have to "hunt down" osama bin laden. is what he did right? no, not by any stretch. can i see where he's coming from when fighting the most powerful nation/military this world has ever seen? yeah, i think i can. it's a cycle of violence that's going to have a breaking point, and that could be nastier than anything we've yet seen. the point being, this is all about oil and our administration's ties to it.

welcome to the plutocracy

MechaBlue
08-02-2002, 12:25 AM
There is another issue that seems to be much overlooked: the costs of the Bush administration. His reforms, since September 11th, have carried a hefty price tag and the deficit is obscenely high, similar to Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative (aka Star Wars) years.

Obviously, it is difficult to argue the economics versus human safety; we place a very high value on human life compared to money. However, there may be a way to achieve both.

Several leftist media pundits have made statements that 9-11 was a result of extremely strong US foreign policy. Even if it is not true, much of the world seems to hate the US. To stop the possibility of further 9-11s, the hatred must stop. The strengthening of US foreign policy only intensifies this hatred at a greater financial cost to the tax payer.

The US currently takes a combatitive approach to dealing with enemies, much like Europe did with Germany after WW I. WW II saw a new way of treating a fallen enemy; Germany and Japan went from military powerhouses to economic powerhouses. Should an enemy state be subjected to harsh sanctions or guided toward a more cooperative role?

Foreign aid may cost billions but military policing costs hundreds of billions and doesn't solve the problem, only covers it up. Nation building is not an instant solution and it is not suitable in all situations (Iraq, for example). However, many situations may benefit.

I don't advocate handing out millions to random governments; that would not be a wise approach. By using the UN to garner support and supervise programs, the US may be able to convince other countries to aid a peace process that will reduce the need for the US military, lowering the tax burden, will provide new markets for american goods, increasing economic prosperity, and will increase positive perception of the US overseas.

It is a more difficult road, but ultimately more worthwhile.

MDC
09-21-2002, 08:29 PM
The economy peaked in early 2000 and has gone mostly down or flat since, so there's nothing unexpected about the deficit. The deficit is more an indication that revenue is down from projected levels, than anything else.

The worst things Bush have done to increase the deficit, are to give democrats most of what they wanted. It didn't make them any nicer, and they never point to their "unfunded" spending as the cause of anything. 40 Billion in tax cuts(so far) have caused the 240 Billion deficit, at least that is the democrat "script".

bigbutnottoo
12-08-2002, 08:52 AM
I'm a big "L"