OT: Poll-Is Bush Selling Out To Special Interests

[Johnny Bitch]

Griff, Bitch please, dont get all big headed because I let you slip by with "shut up" every now and then. :D :wave:

[Chuck Moore]

Hars core to the death neocon?? I'm impressed. Actually I most certainly do not march blindly to the GOP drumbeat. I origonally wasn't even a supporter of Bush, in the primary I backed Alan Keyes. I also worked very hard to help elect a Republican governor here in TN a few years back, with donations and work on a couple of rallies here. After a successfull campaign and a successfull re-election, he turned his back on his principles and those who elected him and tried to push in an unconstitutional tax. And I was among the first to line up against him, in a series of REAL protests from real angry citizens as well as aiding petition drives and letters and phone calls to help defeat his tax. I don't unilaterally agree with everything Bush says or does, there are quit a few points with which I strongly DISAGREE. I support his efforts on the war because I, for the most part, agree with the policy, not because it's Bush thats saying it. My opinions are strictly my own, not handed to me by the RNC.

[Griffinator]

[quote]Originally posted by Chuck Moore: [b]Hars core to the death neocon?? I'm impressed. Actually I most certainly do not march blindly to the GOP drumbeat. I origonally wasn't even a supporter of Bush, in the primary I backed Alan Keyes. I also worked very hard to help elect a Republican governor here in TN a few years back, with donations and work on a couple of rallies here. After a successfull campaign and a successfull re-election, he turned his back on his principles and those who elected him and tried to push in an unconstitutional tax. And I was among the first to line up against him, in a series of REAL protests from real angry citizens as well as aiding petition drives and letters and phone calls to help defeat his tax. I don't unilaterally agree with everything Bush says or does, there are quit a few points with which I strongly DISAGREE. I support his efforts on the war because I, for the most part, agree with the policy, not because it's Bush thats saying it. My opinions are strictly my own, not handed to me by the RNC.[/b][/quote]Ya know, Chuck, I'd be more apt to believe you were a free thinker if you didn't openly assault people who point out Bush's flaws. I'm not a liberal, either, as much as Wow and Super would like to believe I am. I'm a disgusted Libertarian who is in absolute awe of how freely our current (and previous) president willingly sells out public interest to the highest corporate bidder. To Clinton's credit, he did it behind closed doors with more subtle legislative measures. Bush does it in the open and with impunity.

[Chuck Moore]

I'm not aware of openly assaulting anyone. most of the posts I've made tend to try and debate weather a policy is right or wrong, not weather you like or hate an individual. At least that has been my intent. I actually lean more to the Libertarian side of most issues than strict Republicanism, but I choose to work from within a party infrastructure because I believe that is the most effective way to achieve results. You can effect very little if you don't pose any threat of actually winning an election, or I may be more inclined to back Libertarian candidates. I have been very disapointed of late with the administration and the congress for the wild spending they have been on. There seems only a handfull of Republicans in the House willing to stand for smaller govt. these days. I'm also not too particularly thrilled with the Rove stratagy of denying the dems a campaign issue by passing a slightly less costly version of whatever they wanted. And I'm not too sold on this whole "free trade" thing either, especially in regards to China. But on the war, as in most international matters through history, Presidents are keenly aware of their legacy and how they will be judged by history. And I believe this President aproaches the this war with that in mind, and his decisions are based far more what he believes to be a winning stratagy for the country rather than any financial motives. The citizens of this country are, for the most part, supportive of his efforts, and History will judge him, and us, accordingly.

[Super 8]

[quote]Originally posted by Griffinator: [b]I'm not a liberal, either, as much as Wow and Super would like to believe I am. I'm a disgusted Libertarian [/b][/quote]Hey! How'd I get involved in this? :cool: I don't know what I am anymore. I know I'm not a democrat. Dems pay too much lip service. If there's a problem somewhere, start a program and throw some money at it -problem solved. Of course it doesn't work that way, but it gives the appearence of being compassionate and for 'The People'. However, if Nader runs this time for the Green party -as he has done in the past- I'll be all over his ballot. I struggle with the Republicans because they are too much with the "I've got MINE, fuck you if you don't have your's" mentality. Society works best when we all work together and help each other. Few people can truely 'pull themselves up by their own bootstraps', we ALL need help from time to time and bad thing DO happen to good people. We need to take care of each other. I like the Libertarians because they believe in people having freedom and making choices based not upon laws set forth, but by personal ethics and morality. Ethics and morality govern people far better than laws do. Laws are made to be broken. But the thing I don't care for about the Libertarians the same as with the Republicans; the 'tough shit if your life sucks' attitude. Hell if I know what the answer is... I don't think there is one.

[Saint Johnny B]

Chuck, I'm glad you are not blind to the glaring flaws of Bush and Cheney. There are some here who don't seem to see what's right in front of them.

[Griffinator]

[quote]Originally posted by Super 8: [b] But the thing I don't care for about the Libertarians the same as with the Republicans; the 'tough shit if your life sucks' attitude.[/b][/quote]No, what you're running into there are the hardcore GOP'ers who masquerade as Libertarians so they can present themselves as "more conservative than thou" I'm not a heartless individual, nor do I believe the Libertarian party is heartless. What I do believe is that excessive government stymies the individual's ability to "pull himself up by his bootstraps" - fact is, when you're presented with a choice of either sink or swim, you're probably going to swim - but if the government either (from the Dem side) gives you a handout to live on until you "get your life together" or (from the GOP side) closes off all your opportunity by subsidizing your already successful competition, then you're getting fucked and you end up drowning whether you choose to fight or not. Let the charitable organizations do their thing (helping people out who need and want help) and let the federal government do their thing (pave roads, defend borders, deliver the mail, and collect tariffs) and we'll get along just fine. Oh - and before anyone steps up to argue that last jab at the GOP, I can point you to a mile long list of corporate donors for GOP candidates in Virginia alone. Never mind the long list of corporate donors who contribute specifically to GOP PACs. Yeah, the Dems get money from corporate donors too, but a LOT less of it. They get theirs from the unions - which are only marginally better. I still stand behind my point - if we can't get rid of BOTH of them, then we'd better keep BOTH of them in there, lest we upset the balance and REALLY see the country go to shit.

[Johnny Bitch]

Griff, Money = Politics. Human greed is natural and I dont care if its a Republican , green party, dems, and so on, it is IMPOSSIBLE to take money out of politics. [quote] No, what you're running into there are the hardcore GOP'ers who masquerade as Libertarians so they can present themselves as "more conservative than thou" [/quote]LOL, expand on this one, this is good stuff.

[Chuck Moore]

[quote] I'm not a heartless individual, nor do I believe the Libertarian party is heartless. What I do believe is that excessive government stymies the individual's ability to "pull himself up by his bootstraps [/quote]Totally agree with that. Or as Reagan once said "Government is not the solution to our problems.....governmetn IS the problem" And it is true corporations are giving money more heavily to Republicans the democrats at the present. That isn't always the case however, corporations give more heavily to whichever party is in power at the moment. At the end of the day, they don't give a rats rump about who is in charge as long as they have access to them. Thats what they are buying. So how do you fight that? you have to help raise money for candidates you believe in at the grass roots level. The best representative of the people is one who got there with the help of the people. It is far easier for the average polititian to take the corporate money than to have to raise the thousands of small donations it takes to run a successfull campaign. It should be made known to your senator and congressman that your money will go to their opponents if they do not live up to their word. The thing they fear more than an insufficiently funded campaign is an opponent with a properly funded one, especially if their funding is from the grass roots level.

[Super 8]

[quote]Originally posted by Johnny B: [b]Chuck, There are some here who don't seem to see what's right in front of them.[/b][/quote]And they aren't going to see them because they do not believe that they are there...So there is no need to relentlessly try to convince them. To think otherwise is an exercise in futility for yourself and annoyance for everyone else. Better to allow them their opinions and you can have your own.

[Saint Johnny B]

Chuck, That's kind of what Dean is saying, many small contributions to combat the special interests. I think his average donataion is like 80 bucks, or some other small amount. No big donors from what I gather. I confess a little ignorance about Dean, I'm kind of leaning toward Kucinich because he wants to repeal all those stupid trade deals that have resulting in the giant sucking sound Ross Perot spoke of. I think I may have voted for Ross one time. I love those charts and graphs Ross did. Now, if someone like Ross Perot ran again, I'd give him or her serious consideration. But Bush, he's a big sell out. He's totally corrupt. Bush is worse than Warren G. Harding.

[Chuck Moore]

I do like the new tech way Dean is raising money, I think that may be the ONLY thing about him i like, as he's far too left for my taste. I'm enjoying him make the other dems squirm though, and am rooting for him to get the nomination. He will provide the starkest contrast to Bush in the election, and the resultant landslide will send a powerfull message to our adversaries. so GOOOO DEAN!, at least 'till the primaries are over.

[alcohol_]

Chuck, We're not your adversaries. We're fellow American citizens, who believe we should breathe clean air and drink clean water, who don't feel that lies can justify wars. We're fellow American citizens that don't believe that the purpose of government is to serve the wealthy. We're are not adversaries! This effin' reductionist thought process that's ever present in the body politic is effin evil. Instead of reducing issues to us against them, we could talk about issues. Instead of liberal vs conservative we could discuss the effin detail. I even fall into this muck. We are not adversaries, we are fellow citizens. This is a democracy. We discuss, negotiate and come to consensus. WE ARE NOT ADVERSARIES

[Super 8]

I'm kind of an adversary... [i]sorry man, just having a little fun kidd'n around ;) ...[/i]

[Chuck Moore]

ummmmmmmm dude...... I didn't say WE were adversaries. Please read the statement again. I was reffering to our adversaries around the world who base their actions on the mistaken belief that we are not united and will cut and run at the first sign of trouble. Not you. Not the democrats. Not the media. Just our enemies. A landslide re-election against an anti-war candidate like Dean will let them know where the country stands.

[Johnny Bitch]

We are not adversaries, but I dont agree with the middle class getting fucked so that the top 1% and the bottom 50% DONT pay any taxes. The middle class gets FUCKED so that the top and the bottom of the scales can get away with paying no taxes. We are not adversaries, but we do see the role of government in a different light.

[Philter]

Chuck Moore, are you also posting as Wow? Wow's handle used to be C.M. Posts under both names contain the same kind of content and occur around the same time pretty often. Or is this all a coincidence?

[Johnny Bitch]

Let the games begin. :idea:

[Chuck Moore]

nope...... just me in here...... and the other voices in my head

[alcohol_]

Well Bush seems essentially ineffective against overseas adversaries. He overturned the Taliban in Afghanistan which I supported completely, but the news from Afghanistan about the stability of the government there is not good. There are also reports that the Taliban are reasserting themselves in Afghanistan. Failure of effort there. We're now getting Americans killed everyday in Iraq on the basis of finding WMD. Ostensibly there were no WMD or invading that country was not a necessity and the burdens of the freedom of the Iraqi people have been assumed by the US, that's us. Seems that if the Russians can overthrow Communism and the Georgians can overthrow their government and the Iranians overthrowing the Shah, etc.,etc., than the Iraqi's could have overthrown Saddam. Afterall, the civilian population had the arms. Even so, the deposition of Saddam could have been accomplished by other less traumatic means. It was the argument that we needed to get those WMD that rationalized our involvement there and we know that that was a Bush failure, because the US has spent resources and lives needlesly. Also it's reported that our invading Iraq has motivated more people to join the ranks of terrorists, so instead of mitigating the threat of terrorism, Bush has actually increased that threat. If we want to overcome our violent adversaries overseas, policies other than Bush's are needed because he's proven himself a complete failure.

[Saint Johnny B]

I object to the use of terms like "we, our, and us" when discussing actions taken soley by Bush and Cheney. What do you mean "we," white man? I bear no responsibilty whatsoever for what Bush dictates. I hate the idea that Bush speaks for a majority, he does not, in fact, he did not even get a majority of the popular vote, Gore did. So please, when discussing foreign policy, don't use the shorthand "we, us, our" when you know the more accurate term would attribute the action and sole responsibilty to Bush and Cheney. Thanks. Moreover, Bush and Cheney never asked me what I wanted them to do, they just took risky actions, which, in the case of Iraq, was not justifiable on the basis of phantom nukes and missles. Nor did Bush and Cheney consult me as how to spend that 87 billion dollars. They knew all along how they wanted to spend it, who would get what, when, and where the payoffs would be delivered.

[FULLREFUSAL]

Do you really need a poll to answer this question?????

[Chuck Moore]

Maybethey didn't consult you directly, but your elected representative along with everyone elses went along with the war and the 87 bil. Also, in a larger sense, history records what the actions of a country and it's leaders were. It is in that sense that the terms "we our and us" are most relevant. The fact that there was dissent among some in the populace is barely given honorable mention if it is mentioned at all. "We" most definately are in this together.

[Johnny Bitch]

What is the definition of "is"?