OT: Conservatives: Take your best shots at the Dem Candidates

[alcohol]

GZ wrote: "The basic problem with you is there is no center to your ideology. It is all left, all liberals good, all conservatives bad, all the time." I've never made an attempt to describe what 'Mark, GZSounds' believes. That's not my prerogative. You speak for yourself GZ. I'd appreciate you giving me the same courtesy. I certainly don't believe the quote above where you attempt to describe what I believe. If you want to criticize 'me,' criticize what 'I' write, not your imaginations of what I write nor your imagination of my beliefs. It's impossible to have an effective exchange of ideas when one person seems to assume the mantle of omniscience. That person doesn't hear what you say or take the trouble of reading what you write, they believe they already know what you think, and then has no compunction at all to start writing ideas you haven't written and ascribing them to you.

[Wow]

[quote] Senator Graham is calling for some honest government [/quote]There are a handful of democrats I respect, Graham used to be one, I think the man has lost his mind in the last 6 months, he seems a little strange these days.

[coyote]

Which is more important to you, Mr. Wow - loyalty to a group of strangers (do you know everyone in your political party? lol) or loyalty to core values & principles? If the party you've identified with changes its methods or beliefs in a way which is in discord with your values/principles, which way do you go? If one of your values is fiscal responsibility and your party makes a habit of huge deficits, do you stay in the party due to 'loyalty'? Ahhh, but I forget... Ann Coulter labels all Democrats & Liberals as 'treasonous' so Jeffolds must now not only be so for joining them, but doubly so for turning his back on the Party which has drifted far from what were its core values when he initially joined. [quote]Originally posted by Mr. Wow: [b] [quote]I believe Sen. Jeffords and would vote for him if he were running for president, [/quote]You would vote for jumpin' jim?[/b][/quote]

[alcohol]

Ahh, Ann Coulter, my favorite conservative. With spicy utterances like: "We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed too," What could be clearer exhibition of the conservative mind at work?

[GZsound]

[b]Originally posted by alcohol: Ahh, Ann Coulter, my favorite conservative. With spicy utterances like: "We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed too," What could be clearer exhibition of the conservative mind at work?[/b] How can that be any less silly than your statement that all conservatives are Nazi's? I have said before and will say again, there are complete ideological wackos on both sides. And please don't start with topics like killing anybody and use that as a slap at conservatives. I believe the hundreds of thousands of innocent unborn babies killed in the name of liberalism pretty much exhibits the liberal state of mind. I have two sisters that vote straight democratic party line because of the abortion protections provided by the liberal party. At least until just recently when the new law sweeping the land is that your daughter can have an abortion at any time at any age without parental consent. Now, I have one sister that is changing her idea of who to vote for.... she has a 10 year old daughter and it just hit home. Her daughter can't have her tonsils taken out without parental permission but she can now get an abortion.. Yeah, I would be really proud of your "family values" and protections for the weak, poor and helpless..

[Saint Johnny B]

Well now, you see how inconsistent conservatives can be. One of their core values is less government regulation. But look at where they want to go with *their* regulations? Right into people's bedrooms and intrude inside of women's bodies. A truly consistent conservative would say, "Keep the government the hell out of my house, my bedroom, my body, and my woman's body. Mind your own damm business. These are totally private places." Conservatives and the religious fanatics attempt to invade these traditionally private places by making what they believe are moral arguments. But that is tantamount to saying that after reviewing the extensive medical literature, hearing voluminous arguments made by lawyers of all stripes, that the conservative US Supreme Court was wrong for upholding the US Constitution's barring these kinds of excessive governmental intrusions into people's private affairs. We are a nation of laws, the conservative US Supreme Court has spoken and ruled that terminating a fetus is within a woman's personal and private right to control her own body and this right is protected by the US Constitution. A true conservative would respect this "keep the government out" position, but instead conservatives want the government to "liberally" expand its reach into a woman's womb. It's funny that conservatives would liberally expand the government to regulate a woman's body, but would oppose the liberal expansion of government to regulate a corporation that may be doing global damage to large numbers of investors, large parts of the environment, and the safety and health of large numbers of people. For example, conservatives and republicans just helped kill in the California Legislature a proposal to apply 3 strikes laws to corporations who are have commited crimes. Mimd you, so-called liberal positions are often just as inconsistent. And again, we probably have not seen a truly great liberal since FDR. So this nonsense of liberal vs conservative is just that, nonsense. One needs to examine the voting records and stands of the candidates. One must ask: Where is their campaign money coming from? Then you compare the candidates with one another. Perhaps, you go to ProjectVoteSmart.org or some other vote-tracking organization and see how the candidates voted on particular issues or how they are rated by various organizations in particular areas like the environment. So can we all try to stay focused on these 9 candidates? Were are these 9 on *the* issues?

[alcohol]

Mark, So will you say that Ann Coulter isn't a good representative of conservatives? That she represents the extreme end of conservatism? And will you say that good conservatives should be denouncing her, because her extremism misrepresents conservatives? Because I know that all conservatives are not like Ann, but I have heard her on the Hannity show and I've heard here on the Laura Ingraham show and they seem to like and support her. She's a best selling author. Wouldn't it be fair to say that as opposed to an unpopular extremist, Ann Coulter is a general representative of conservative thinking in the US? Mark you wrote: "I believe the hundreds of thousands of innocent unborn babies killed in the name of liberalism pretty much exhibits the liberal state of mind. " It's news to me that women have abortions in the name of liberalism. Would seem to me that women, in deciding that the government didn't have the right to control their bodies, were being conservative in their desire to keep government out of their personal business. Or is this a contradiction in conservative philosophy? You don't think there are women who are Republicans or conservative that have abortions? Are conservative women who have abortions quasi conservatives? Maybe if a woman has an abortion she loses her right to think conservative thought and she then needs to think only liberal thoughts and then Ann Coulter can have her way with after that? Maybe liberal minded women are having abortions in the name of conservatism because they are acting independently of government? One thing is for certain, no woman ever had an abortion in the name of liberalism. Arguing about abortion is a never ending spiral from my observations, so to me it's a political struggle and you can have the last word.

[Wow]

[quote] Which is more important to you, Mr. Wow - loyalty to a group of strangers (do you know everyone in your political party? lol) or loyalty to core values & principles? [/quote]If you think switching parties so that the power of the Senate switches hands is a good thing and upholds principles, then you have some wack core values. EVERYTHING is a conspiracy on this board: the plane crash before the election enron and Bush Bush and UBL were in bed together 9/11 was planned BUT NOT jumpin' jim, that was completely legit. :rolleyes: clinton got his hands on jumpin' jim, I hope he enjoys whatever he got. He will NOT be re-elected. Wanna talk about the voters being ripped off, THIS is a good example.

[coyote]

OK, here are some questions & thoughts for you. By phasing in elements of the free market, did Mr. Gorbachev betray his party? Did he betray the Russian people? Are his core values 'wack' because he shifted power away from his Party (and ultimately himself)? Or is it all magically OK because it served our geopolitical interests? [quote]Originally posted by Mr. Wow: [b]If you think switching parties so that the power of the Senate switches hands is a good thing and upholds principles, then you have some wack core values. [/b][/quote]

[GZsound]

[b]Originally posted by alcohol: Mark, So will you say that Ann Coulter isn't a good representative of conservatives? That she represents the extreme end of conservatism? And will you say that good conservatives should be denouncing her, because her extremism misrepresents conservatives? Because I know that all conservatives are not like Ann, but I have heard her on the Hannity show and I've heard here on the Laura Ingraham show and they seem to like and support her. She's a best selling author. Wouldn't it be fair to say that as opposed to an unpopular extremist, Ann Coulter is a general representative of conservative thinking in the US?[/b] No, no and no again. And I don't feel Hannity and Colmes, Laura Ingraham, etc. are representative of the majority of conservatives either. I frequently disagree with both of them and you can include Rush Limbaugh etc. These people are entertainers and as such are supposed to espouse extreme points of view. I don't consider my views to be extreme. What you are doing is similar to me saying Ted Kennedy and Al Sharpton are typical of liberal thinking in America. And we both know that's not true at all. I think there is a huge center where the lines get blurry and that is where most Americans stand. I also think blindly supporting one party is nuts. And my opinion on abortion is fairly simple. I do not think it should be banned. I think the rule should be "one penis, no vote". I also think abortion should not be used as birth control. I would like to know what my underage daughter is having done to her body since I am financially and legally responsible for her until age 18. I think abortion on demand is overused. I believe in personal responsibility, which to me is a core conservative value. If you can't be responsible with your body, if you can't understand that having unprotected sex can lead to pregenancy, if you understand you might be responsible for the life of another, perhaps unwanted pregnancies would diminish..I don't know. I do know that abortion on demand seems somehow less than humane to me. And what I mean by including liberals in the equation is that usually most PETA folks are extreme liberals. Most Pro Choice folks are liberal, (not necessarily extremist). So I get confused when the fight is so important to save the chickens from inhumane treatment at Kentucky Fried Chicken but lets have abortion on demand. I don't support having less government in all things. The constitution pretty much is clear it is a major function of government to protect us. But at what age or which group are they talking about protecting with abortion on demand. So, my comment about liberal involvement in the abortion issue was based on the fact that usually it is the democratic party or liberal wing of it that supports expanded abortion. Conservative women have them too, and a lot of conservatives support a womans right to choose. However, I think there should be fewer government regulations, more individual responsibility, and like I said, one penis, no vote. My answer was in response to your Ann Coulter remark that Johnny Walker Lind should be killed. He is a criminal and a traitor, but as we all found out, the product of a broken home and confused parents so it wasn't his fault..he was a victim. We should just give him a big hug. [b]rguing about abortion is a never ending spiral from my observations, so to me it's a political struggle and you can have the last word.[/b] I agree, and I actually didn't mean to get into an abortion argument. I'm sorry I brought it up, you are correct, it's like wiping your ass with a hoop, there is no end to it. Being a rock and roll star all my life gave me one perspective....then I had kids and hoped to God my daughter never met somebody like me...Funny how life does that.

[Griffinator]

[quote]Originally posted by robb.: [b]the greater injustice in that sentence is not "NAFTA", but "the damn US government lent them the money". why don't you oppose a government that takes money from people in order to lend it to businesses? doesn't that have a lot more to do with your joblessness than NAFTA? robb.[/b][/quote]Actually, from my perspective, NAFTA, coupled with the most-favored-nation trade status afforded to China, has absolutely destroyed the manufacturing base here in this country. Someone a while ago mentioned something about TV's made in the US - there are two, currently - Mitsubishi and Toshiba (27" and up). Sony's big stuff is made in Mexico. Thomson as well (RCA, ProScan, GE). The "sucking sound" our nutty friend predicted back in '92 is very audible, for those who choose to listen. I'm behind any candidate who offers a plan to rid us of the scourge of offshore manufacturing at the expense of American jobs. I'd love to see Sony and all the other Japanese and American companies take the massive hit from tariffs shipping their crap from Mexico to the US - suddenly there will be an economic advantage to basing manufacturing in the US again, and our economy, which is on the brink of collapse, will grow strong once more. {end rant} Seriously. Offshore cheap labor = death to the American economy.

[Griffinator]

So after looking at the rest of this thread, I see the same dissatisfaction with both parties on both sides of the fence (with the apparent exception of Mr. Wow, who wholeheartedly embraces the GOP regardless of their sin) So the question is, what do you do? I submit that every single one of you needs to take a hard look at one of the well-established independent parties running about. The Libertarians would be a good place to start. Granted, they're unorganized and underfunded, but if voting for the "lesser of two evils" is perfectly OK for a lot of people, I would submit that the "lesser of three evils" is going to produce a dramatically better moral option - the Libs haven't even been afforded the opportunity to lie to your face. You could at least give them that before you lump them in with 200 years of corrupt government on both sides of the fence. See, a third party, historically, doesn't necessarily take hold in American politics - but it does tend to wake up the two dominant parties and force them to listen to what the people are actually saying. Remember the Whigs? Nutjobs, right? They woke the Dems and the GOP up in a hurry, and forced them to reexamine their beliefs and the way they related to the public as a whole. Positive change resulted. Now, we are again mired in a very similar political quagmire where both Dems and GOP's alike have lost their ideals to the temptation of a common ideal - that of personal gain - and the serious rise of a third party could quickly correct that situation once more. Of course, you could go on with your "a vote for a third party candidate is a vote for the liberals." (or conservatives, as your alignment may be) But then you'd be perpetuating what we all agree isn't working.

[alcohol]

Guys and girls, I enjoy arguing politics to the point of it being a vice. So I'm burning my bridges and declaring that all my utterances from yesterday are my last words written on politics on this BBB. So if I write one more political comment stop me. thanks, Joe

[Saint Johnny B]

Well should Ross Perot run again in order to get rid of NAFTA and NAFTA-like deals that cause all the jobs to be sucked out of America? I really admire Ralph Nader, the most trusted man in America, trouble is, the greens don't stand a chance against the Bush Crime Family. Perhaps, America would be better off if some new parties became serious contenders. I assume Mr Wow would join the official neo-Nazi/neo-Facists if they actually announced who they really are: Bush, Cheney, Ashcroft, etc. "We see the oil. we want it, lock and load pal, 'cuz we's gonin' tuh war. We're goin' to control the world, and your world too. If ya stand up agin me, we'll jus shoot ya. Put on your brown shirts and goosestep right behind the new leader. And don't forget to wrap all your worst arguments in da flag. Civil rights? You got no rights here as a matter of duh national security, as defined by my new facist leader." But can we get back on topic and seriously discuss the 9 Democratic Candidates? Issues? Stands? Voting Records? Sources of Campaign Money?

[Wow]

[quote] (with the apparent exception of Mr. Wow, who wholeheartedly embraces the GOP [/quote]If you think I agree with everything the GOP does, then you have not read my post. :) . . . . Alcohol, You are a Master Jedi . :)

[techristian]

This link should interest you. [url=http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/]Bill Clintons Speech[/url] Bush said the same thing and you jumped all over him. Will you jump all over Bill the same??? Dan http://musicinit.com/pvideos.html

[KenElevenShadows]

[quote]Originally posted by techristian: [b]This link should interest you. [url=http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/]Bill Clintons Speech[/url] Bush said the same thing and you jumped all over him. Will you jump all over Bill the same??? [/b][/quote]If you feel it's wrong, it doesn't matter who says it.

[coyote]

Seems Clinton knew we could keep the Iraqi weapons programs in check via limited strikes - it was totally unneccessary to conquer the nation to achieve that particular objective, and doing it that way would avoid the quagmire of occupation. Instead, we now have our own version of the West Bank.

[Danno]

If you look at and can stomach the demoncrat candidates, you'll see that they and their party are dangerously close to irrelevance.

[Saint Johnny B]

I watched CSPAN and saw an excellent speech by Al Gore where he tore Bush a new you know what. It might be good if Ross Perot ran again. I hear that sucking sound and see all the jobs disappearing, what 3 million jobs lost under Bush so far. But CSPAN has also been broadcasting the debates of the Democratic Candidates, and to be honest, everyone of them is far superior to what we have now.

[johnnie red]

Towards the end of his term, it became Clinton's official position that regime change in Iraq was necessary. Gore would have done the same thing that Bush did (though he might have done it a little differently), just like so many Democrats voted in favor of giving Bush a blank check for war.

[the stranger]

[quote]Originally posted by GZsound: [b][b]Originally posted by alcohol: Mark, So will you say that Ann Coulter isn't a good representative of conservatives? That she represents the extreme end of conservatism? And will you say that good conservatives should be denouncing her, because her extremism misrepresents conservatives? Because I know that all conservatives are not like Ann, but I have heard her on the Hannity show and I've heard here on the Laura Ingraham show and they seem to like and support her. She's a best selling author. Wouldn't it be fair to say that as opposed to an unpopular extremist, Ann Coulter is a general representative of conservative thinking in the US?[/b] No, no and no again. And I don't feel Hannity and Colmes, Laura Ingraham, etc. are representative of the majority of conservatives either. I frequently disagree with both of them and you can include Rush Limbaugh etc. These people are entertainers and as such are supposed to espouse extreme points of view. I don't consider my views to be extreme. What you are doing is similar to me saying Ted Kennedy and Al Sharpton are typical of liberal thinking in America. And we both know that's not true at all. I think there is a huge center where the lines get blurry and that is where most Americans stand. I also think blindly supporting one party is nuts. And my opinion on abortion is fairly simple. I do not think it should be banned. I think the rule should be "one penis, no vote". I also think abortion should not be used as birth control. I would like to know what my underage daughter is having done to her body since I am financially and legally responsible for her until age 18. I think abortion on demand is overused. I believe in personal responsibility, which to me is a core conservative value. If you can't be responsible with your body, if you can't understand that having unprotected sex can lead to pregenancy, if you understand you might be responsible for the life of another, perhaps unwanted pregnancies would diminish..I don't know. I do know that abortion on demand seems somehow less than humane to me. And what I mean by including liberals in the equation is that usually most PETA folks are extreme liberals. Most Pro Choice folks are liberal, (not necessarily extremist). So I get confused when the fight is so important to save the chickens from inhumane treatment at Kentucky Fried Chicken but lets have abortion on demand. I don't support having less government in all things. The constitution pretty much is clear it is a major function of government to protect us. But at what age or which group are they talking about protecting with abortion on demand. So, my comment about liberal involvement in the abortion issue was based on the fact that usually it is the democratic party or liberal wing of it that supports expanded abortion. Conservative women have them too, and a lot of conservatives support a womans right to choose. However, I think there should be fewer government regulations, more individual responsibility, and like I said, one penis, no vote. My answer was in response to your Ann Coulter remark that Johnny Walker Lind should be killed. He is a criminal and a traitor, but as we all found out, the product of a broken home and confused parents so it wasn't his fault..he was a victim. We should just give him a big hug. [b]rguing about abortion is a never ending spiral from my observations, so to me it's a political struggle and you can have the last word.[/b] I agree, and I actually didn't mean to get into an abortion argument. I'm sorry I brought it up, you are correct, it's like wiping your ass with a hoop, there is no end to it. Being a rock and roll star all my life gave me one perspective....then I had kids and hoped to God my daughter never met somebody like me...Funny how life does that.[/b][/quote]Give me a break. :rolleyes: I've got a Constitution sitting right here. It hangs right next to me everytime I'm here. And I don't understand where people get all these ideas about what the Constitution intends. All this interpretation that has gone on is just legal garbage perpetuated by the legal establishment. As far as I'm concerned, the constitution is very clear and concise and doesn't leave any real room for interpretation. The legal establishment and the politicians have found room for it, because it serves their ends. Look at the way law is written today. The common person almost can't read it. Do you think this is to prevent interpretation? No. This is to increase the number of interpretations. Most of the law is written by lawyers. Most of our leaders are lawyers. And they know how to spin the law just the way they need it. Most law passed today is just a show. Feelgood crap that serves no real function. Why? Because the legislature is carfty and knows just how to leave enough holes to render these laws void. They aren't writing law, they are writing loopholes. As for "no penis, no vote": What do you do when your wife says she is pregnant with your child, but wants to abort?

[Saint Johnny B]

Most of the guys who wrote the US Constitution were lawyers? Lawyers gave us our country and our freedoms. and our rights. The problem is not the lawyers or the democrats or the great liberal minds like FDR, it's the right wing facists and some greedy corporations. They are all friends of the moron some people call the new Hitler, that being the Bush-man and his gang of criminals.

[the stranger]

[quote]Originally posted by Johnny B: [b]Most of the guys who wrote the US Constitution were lawyers? Lawyers gave us our country and our freedoms. and our rights. The problem is not the lawyers or the democrats or the great liberal minds like FDR, it's the right wing facists and some greedy corporations. They are all friends of the moron some people call the new Hitler, that being the Bush-man and his gang of criminals.[/b][/quote]If you do the research, you are going to find that BOTH parties have ties to corporations. Corporations contribute to both parties almost equally. We were approaching fascist control and corporate domination long before Bush got in office. I'm guessing that you are a socialist. The democratic party is probably a good choice for you. But you should remember, every nation in history that was fascist called itself socialist. The democrats may have good ideals as a party, but FDR is dead. The new deal is dead. And the idea that any of these crooks are living by the ideals of the democratic party is a sham. Just because Bush is a crook doesn't mean the democrats aren't. If your great liberal democrats are so good, why are they supporting GB all the way? Empty soundbites don't equate to shit. If the democrats wanted to stop GB, they could. As far as I can tell, the democratic members of congress are going along with this whole show. Johnny, Do the research and you will find that the democrats are just as guilty of corporate influence as the republicans are. The entire political system is being controlled by corporations. These two parties have taken turns at power for how many years? Have things gotten better or worse? And did you ever stop to think that the democrats are the reason GB got elected in the first place? I know that the election was a farce, but the numbers were neck and neck. That means half the people who voted, voted for Bush. And did you ever stop to think this was due to total disgust after Bill's sex, lies, and stained dresses? These waves of conservatism don't come around for no reason. Rather than use common sense to run this country, people choose to jump from one extreme to the other for the sake of balance and end up with none.

[D. Gauss]

<> i imagine someone will, given our current gun control laws.... :) -d. gauss

[the stranger]

[quote]Originally posted by d gauss: [b]<> i imagine someone will, given our current gun control laws.... :) -d. gauss[/b][/quote]that's fuckin' harsh, man... :D :D :D

[Saint Johnny B]

Well the US Senator Paul Wellstone, a democrat, was not owned or controlled by any corporation. Some people called him the "conscience of the senate." He drove around in a big green bus and did not take any more than 100 dollars from anyone and his former students and other college students came together and gave him much of his strength on the ground. Sen Wellstone proved you don't have to be corrupt to be elected. Too bad he died in a plane crash. I liked him. As for the current crop of Democratic Presidential Candidates, so far, they all semm to be an order of magnitude better than Bush and Cheney. I think Gov. Dean is raising all his money from the internet and only takes very small contributions. Sort of like Wellstone. Dean is looking pretty good so far.

[GZsound]

[b]Originally posted by the stranger: As for "no penis, no vote": What do you do when your wife says she is pregnant with your child, but wants to abort?[/b] First off, when my wife got pregnant, we didn't hold an election so there wasn't a vote. My comment is about voting for womens issues. I do not understand why a bunch of fat cat white guys get to control something they know nothing about. Your question proves the point.. if your wife gets pregnant, who should have the control? I say the mother and father should decide, not the government.

[Biggus]

Mark-- IMHO, you are on the mark just about every time with your comments. I'm of the opinion that abortion should be SAFE, RARE (extremely), and LEGAL. My wife and I would never dream of aborting a child unless here health were in serious jeaprody. The gov shouldn't tell you when or how you can or cannot get an abortion. Your personal conscience should, and your choices should be between you and God(if you go in for that). Personally, I find abortion a repugnant alternative, but its also repugnant that some people have children and through neglect, abuse etc the child grows up to repeat the same cycle. It's funny-- you need a license to fish, hunt, operate a motor vehicle, but ANYONE can have a child. How fucked up is that set of priorities, campers? We DO need to do something to jumpstart manufacturing in this country again. BTW, do you know how many intellectual property infringement suits have been filed against offshore countries like China, Taiwan, even Japan in some cases (no, I don't mean to single out the Pacific Rim, they just came to mind quickly). Its staggering. In many instances, judgements have been passed in 'World Courts' (awed silence), but violators ignore them. My works for a company that manufactures computer connectors. They have had dozens of patented designs ripped off by offshore companies (down to minutae of the design, not just a rough copy, mind you). These offshore companies can turn around and sell way cheaper, because they do not have the R&D costs that the true owner of the patent does. Its sickening. Mark- you summarized it best. PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. Let's all write it on the blackboard 100 times... ;)

[Wow]

Al Sharpton looks like a PIMP. :wave: