You know I have read countless numbers of republican responses to these threads. They say they are glad to be republicans ect, ect,. What I don't understand is with an uncalled for war in Iraq that was started with several lies , illegal wire tappings, illegal firings from the justice department, mishandeling of hurricane katrina, no-bid contracts given to halliburton, a tax break for wealthy, upper-class americans, and totaly ignoring the real war on terrorism, how can you be proud to be a republican when your republican president has crippled this country?
#1ukfan Wrote:how can you be proud to be a republican when your republican president has crippled this country?
Most republicans are most proud to be republicans mostly because they are NOT democrats.
Old Timer Wrote:Most republicans are most proud to be republicans mostly because they are NOT democrats.
Another :lame: response from the radical right. Republicans claim to hold the moral high ground while leaving nothing but a barren wasteland in their wake. War. Mass graves. Starvation. Nuclear proliferation. Conspired back door deals and secret, unlawful, clandestine operations. Most of which we'll never hear about. They really have the abuse of power thing down to a fine science.
The only thing that makes Republicans special is their lust for power and money.
In the 1990's when a US President traveled abroad he would be greeted by thousands of enthusiastic supporters. Today the US President doesn't travel abroad nearly as often because the receptions have all turned violent. The rest of the world doesn't hate America, they hate the People who are in charge! Republicans.
The radical right is more dangerous to America than the Taliban ever dremaed about.:mad:
LMAO...I guess you democrats forgot all about that whole Vietnam thing (58,302+ killed) didnt you? You know, the war that ignorant dumbass Lyndon Johnson kept our boys in to be slaughtered after another democrat sent them in?? The greatest president our country ever had? Richard Nixon. Hands down.
#1ukfan Wrote:You know I have read countless numbers of republican responses to these threads. They say they are glad to be republicans ect, ect,. What I don't understand is with an uncalled for war in Iraq that was started with several lies , illegal wire tappings, illegal firings from the justice department, mishandeling of hurricane katrina, no-bid contracts given to halliburton, a tax break for wealthy, upper-class americans, and totaly ignoring the real war on terrorism, how can you be proud to be a republican when your republican president has crippled this country?
Of course, Republicans could take the Clinton presidency
and make a list of failures and mistakes. Here is what
I puzzle over: eastern kentucky Republicans are often
fierce in their belief "in God and country." I assume
the "God" they believe in is the one Jesus claimed. Jesus
blessed "peacemakers." I am no democrat, no republican,
no socialist, no capitalist...but I know this: when
polled, nearly 80% of Americans want some kind of reform
in health care that lowers costs and makes coverage
universal; our politicians, democrats and republicans alike,
say that that is "politcally not doable." Why? Because the
AMA and PHARMA and the insurance industry actually have
the power, and they don't care about who has majority in
Congress, as long as nobody fools with their riches.
TidesHoss32 Wrote:LMAO...I guess you democrats forgot all about that whole Vietnam thing (58,302+ killed) didnt you? You know, the war that ignorant dumbass Lyndon Johnson kept our boys in to be slaughtered after another democrat sent them in?? The greatest president our country ever had? Richard Nixon. Hands down.
:Thumbs:
DevilsWin Wrote:Another :lame: response from the radical right. Republicans claim to hold the moral high ground while leaving nothing but a barren wasteland in their wake. War. Mass graves. Starvation. Nuclear proliferation. Conspired back door deals and secret, unlawful, clandestine operations. Most of which we'll never hear about. They really have the abuse of power thing down to a fine science.
The only thing that makes Republicans special is their lust for power and money.
In the 1990's when a US President traveled abroad he would be greeted by thousands of enthusiastic supporters. Today the US President doesn't travel abroad nearly as often because the receptions have all turned violent. The rest of the world doesn't hate America, they hate the People who are in charge! Republicans.
The radical right is more dangerous to America than the Taliban ever dremaed about.:mad:
You need to learn the radical RIGHT way to spell dreamed!!
Just another LAME poke at the lame left!
irateSho
I agree that most Republicans think they hold some sort of high moral ground. I know that we can sit and debate the mistakes of past presidents of both political parties, but that doesn't matter. What does matter is the here and now, and the here and now is run by a Replubican who claims to have deep religious beliefs, but his actions totally contradict that. He fooled so many people by pushing this in his campaign, and a lot of the "evanagelist" group voted for him. But people are seeing through his lies, I saw in a recent poll on CNN that religious groups and starting to fade away from the republican party and are more likely to vote democrat or independent. Why is this? I believe they now see that you cant just vote for someone who claims to believe in god, you need to vote for the right person.
Another thing that ticks me off is that a lot of Replubicans get their news from the idiots at fox, ive met a lot of people from the "right" who have no clue what is really going on in the world, I guess thats why so many of them voted for that idiot bush again. Now dont get me wrong, Ive met many people on the right who are very well informed, and are great people, but a big majority are just misinformed.
DevilsWin Wrote:Another :lame: response from the radical right. Republicans claim to hold the moral high ground while leaving nothing but a barren wasteland in their wake. War. Mass graves. Starvation. Nuclear proliferation. Conspired back door deals and secret, unlawful, clandestine operations. Most of which we'll never hear about. They really have the abuse of power thing down to a fine science.
That little spiel just goes to prove that claims of 'moral superiority' are not limited to those on the Republican right. Democrats also repeatedly claim to be the party of good, while the GOP is all evil. Trust me, neither party has a monopoly on what is right. When it all boils down, neither party advances an agenda that is completely in this country's best interests.
Coach_Owens87 Wrote:Another thing that ticks me off is that a lot of Replubicans get their news from the idiots at fox, ive met a lot of people from the "right" who have no clue what is really going on in the world, I guess thats why so many of them voted for that idiot bush again. Now dont get me wrong, Ive met many people on the right who are very well informed, and are great people, but a big majority are just misinformed.
You know what makes me sick???
...you know what makes me want to choke on a dangling chad???
....that liberals ass-sume that all republicans get their news from Fox...ever thought that conservative folks might just have their own morals that happen to fall into line with the only news network that actually has a few real morals that don't just come out at election time.
Oh, and the high and mighty left/democrats get all of their information first hand from the likes of CNN and Michael Moore...
I really don't think I would be talking about anyone's information source when that is what you have to fall back on.
Oh yeah, they've got Gore too...How could I forget, the inventor of information himself, he invented the internet, right?
i don't care either way but this was started along time before bush took office.
If you live in Eastern Kentucky, I don't care what party you are listed as belonging to, if you aren't for gun rights and against abortion then you lose any election you run in. That usually is a federal Rep. party platform issue but living in Eastern Ky. if any Democrat wants to be successful he or she had better jump over when it comes to answering questions about those two issues.
Watchful Eye Wrote:If you live in Eastern Kentucky, I don't care what party you are listed as belonging to, if you aren't for gun rights and against abortion then you lose any election you run in. That usually is a federal Rep. party platform issue but living in Eastern Ky. if any Democrat wants to be successful he or she had better jump over when it comes to answering questions about those two issues.
Apparently, as long as a candidate says "no abortion" and
"guns, guns, guns," he or she can sell the economic interests
of the common man down the river and still get elected. To me,
here is the sadness in our political process: groups are pitted
against each other and vote around issues that divide, all the
while the fat cats who sit in board rooms and carve up the
globe for maximum riches make decisions that harm the economic
interests of those in the lower middle and bottom, which, of
course, constitutes a lot of eastern kentucky.
TRue! It's almost as STUPID as voting party wide on election day!
TidesHoss32 Wrote:LMAO...I guess you democrats forgot all about that whole Vietnam thing (58,302+ killed) didnt you? You know, the war that ignorant dumbass Lyndon Johnson kept our boys in to be slaughtered after another democrat sent them in?? The greatest president our country ever had? Richard Nixon. Hands down.
What exactly is Nixon's legacy? What makes him the best President ever?
The secret unlawful bombing of Cambodia?
The Slaughter in East Timor?
Doing nothing about the humanitarian crisis and genocide in Cambodia brought on by Pol Pot?
Deepening the divide in America during what was almost the 2nd American Revolution?
The unlawful spying and breakin at the Watergate Hotel to keep a firm grip on his power and stack the election?
Promising to end the Vietnam war if elected only to end up escalating the war?
Nixon had one shining moment during his presidency and that was getting Mao and China to agree to Bi-lateral talks with the U.S.
Nixon opened up relations with China, which
led to, years later, China receiving "Favored
Nation" trading status, which, of course, led
to nearly everything in a Walmart store being
manufactured in a human rights denying Communist
state. Now, what was the Cold War? Let me tell
you what matters: the Green War: i.e. money...
what is the most important color in the world?
Black? White? Nay...green...i.e. money. "Love"
goes to the cheapest labor, the highest profit
margin...ain't nothin' else matters that much...
Have you heard about the Pentagon Papers, which was leaked in 1971, citing that the Johnson administration, thats right, the JOHNSON administration SECRETLY expanded the United States' involvement in the Vietnam war, which hurt Nixon's credibility. Your OPINION about the second American Revolution was started by Johnson, when he kept sending thousands upon thousands of boys to die in Vietnam. A war which we pulled out of, under the presidency of Richard Millhouse Nixon. So, it is your opinion that Nixon started it, but it is my opinion that Nixon ended it. As far as the Watergate garbage, how many people got sent away for Whitewater? Compared to Clinton, Nixon was a saint. Clinton survived his presidency because he was a media darling, which is garbage. Clinton was on the verge of impeachment until he decided to bomb the snot out of Iraq out of the blue.
DevilsWin Wrote:What exactly is Nixon's legacy? What makes him the best President ever?
The secret unlawful bombing of Cambodia?
The Slaughter in East Timor?
Doing nothing about the humanitarian crisis and genocide in Cambodia brought on by Pol Pot?
Deepening the divide in America during what was almost the 2nd American Revolution?
The unlawful spying and breakin at the Watergate Hotel to keep a firm grip on his power and stack the election?
Promising to end the Vietnam war if elected only to end up escalating the war?
Nixon had one shining moment during his presidency and that was getting Mao and China to agree to Bi-lateral talks with the U.S.
Nixon had been a practicing New Federalist since he entered Congress in 1946. Throughout his political career, he had opposed big government programs and fought to restore political authority to the local level. Now he would use the power of the presidency to further the cause of New Federalism.
In 1969, despite civil rights reforms like the landmark decision declaring that segregated schools where unconstitutional, the
'64 Civil Rights Bill and the 1965 Voting Rights Act, many African Americans lived without the full protection of the law, equal access to public facilities, or equal economic opportunity. Nixon viewed this situation as not only unfair to African Americans, but as a waste of valuable human resources which could help the nation grow.
Starting in Mississippi and moving across the South, the Nixon administration set up biracial state committees to plan and implement school desegregation. The appeal to local control succeeded. By the end of 1970, with little of the anticipated violence and little fanfare, the committees had made significant progress -- only about 18% of black children in the South attended all-black schools.
New Federalism's focus on local empowerment did not mean an abdication of federal responsibility. In fact, the de-emphasis of federal bureaucracy coincided with a concentration of power within the White House. The president's actions on behalf of women illustrated his willingness to use that concentrated power.
The president sent dozens of environmental proposals to Congress, including the Clean Air Act of 1970, perhaps one of the most significant pieces of environmental legislation ever passed. He also created two new agencies, the Department of Natural Resources and the Environmental Protection Agency, to oversee environmental matters.
Nixon had experienced the sting of poverty as a child, and he never forgot it. But while he sympathized with the poor, he also shared many Americans' conviction that the welfare system had grown into an inefficient bureaucracy which fostered dependency and low self esteem among welfare recipients and contributed to the breakdown of families by providing assistance only to households which were not headed by a working male.
With the assistance of Urban Affairs Council secretary Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Nixon created the Family Assistance Plan. FAP called for the replacement of bureaucratically administered programs such as Aid to Families with Dependent Children, Food Stamps, and Medicaid, with direct cash payments to those in need. Not only single-parent families, but the working poor would qualify for aid. All recipients, save the mothers of preschool age children, would be required to work or take job training.
Nixon and Kissinger were playing global power politics. In effect, they were balancing China against the U.S.S.R and intimidating both of them.
Nixon, however, recognized that he would have to make concessions if he wanted rapprochement with China. Early on, he took steps to tone down the anti-China rhetoric coming from the White House, loosened trade and visa restrictions between China and the U.S., and began troop reductions in both Vietnam and on bases near China.
Sure everyone knows not only did LBJ escalate the war with the Gulf Of Ton kin Incident I'll even acknowledge Kennedy had advisers in Vietnam before his death. He was about to withdraw all US interests according to Kissinger. But it was McNamara, Kissinger, Westmoreland and Nixon who really threw out the rule book. LBJ also signed into law more legislation than any president before him or since. One of those laws was the Civil Rights Act. I will also concede that Nixon signed into law the Endangered Species Act. But these things happened a long time ago. Times have changed. 1968's Conservative values were molded by Barry Goldwater. Today Ron Paul represents those same values and gets laughed at by Giuliani supporters. The times aren't changing any more. Change is here now.
Yes, change is here now. I'll give you anything you want on Giuliani. I dont like his politics at all. I would vote for him if he won the nomination, but thats a big if. I find it funny that you slam Nixon because what he done was in the past, sure it was. But what he done in the late 60s and 70s was huge for our nation, and even democrats cant take that away from him. No president since has been better for our country.
DevilsWin Wrote:Sure everyone knows not only did LBJ escalate the war with the Gulf Of Ton kin Incident I'll even acknowledge Kennedy had advisers in Vietnam before his death. He was about to withdraw all US interests according to Kissinger. But it was McNamara, Kissinger, Westmoreland and Nixon who really threw out the rule book. LBJ also signed into law more legislation than any president before him or since. One of those laws was the Civil Rights Act. I will also concede that Nixon signed into law the Endangered Species Act. But these things happened a long time ago. Times have changed. 1968's Conservative values were molded by Barry Goldwater. Today Ron Paul represents those same values and gets laughed at by Giuliani supporters. The times aren't changing any more. Change is here now.
Watchful Eye Wrote:TRue! It's almost as STUPID as voting party wide on election day!
I can't stand it when people just go into the booth and vote straight ticket, no matter which party it is. I say this because most people who do that think "The Democrats/Republicans are always right, so I'll vote for all of them." That is terribly irresponsible, they really have no clue why they're voting for a certain person. Honestly, I think some people would vote for an axe murderer if he belonged to the particular party that they like.
Ideally, voters should study each candidate in a race, then vote for the best person, regardless of party affiliation. I doubt there are many elections where the best candidate is
always from the same party.
Good Comment!
I think voting party wide clearly shows low levels of education or maybe even limited experiences outside the "holler"!
In infantile political thought, the candidate is either
completely evil or good, depending on your affiliation.
In cynical political thought, the candidates are nigh
completely evil no matter what political affilication.
In more mature political thought, the candidates are
neither completely bad or good, but interwoven and
complicated mixtures of both... because they are
human beings.
I don't like when people say that the country would be better off if a certain political party (their party) was in control. Folks, neither political party should ever have free reign to do what they want. Having elected officials from each party serves as a good system of checks and balances to keep the other party from gaining too much power.
Either party would run this country into the ground if they had complete control of things. I hope that never happens.
thecavemaster Wrote:In infantile political thought, the candidate is either
completely evil or good, depending on your affiliation.
In cynical political thought, the candidates are nigh
completely evil no matter what political affilication.
In more mature political thought, the candidates are
neither completely bad or good, but interwoven and
complicated mixtures of both... because they are
human beings.
These sound like certain political talking head "rants" I saw published somewhere on the web.
FOX SPORTS Wrote:These sound like certain political talking head "rants" I saw published somewhere on the web.
Don't know about that...I haven't seen or heard them.
It's like this for me: I do not agree with a lot of
the policies in the Bush term; however, on a personal
level, Bush seems a rather affable sort. I try not
to mix up the policies and the man, believing the
man to be "evil" because I do not agree with his
policies. Also, I do agree with Bush in several
areas, while I disagree with him in many more.
For me, I just can't see throwing my support behind any one party. When I look at the positions of each major political party on the important issues, I find myself agreeing with one side about half the time, and the other side the rest.
More Cowbell Wrote:I don't like when people say that the country would be better off if a certain political party (their party) was in control. Folks, neither political party should ever have free reign to do what they want. Having elected officials from each party serves as a good system of checks and balances to keep the other party from gaining too much power.
Either party would run this country into the ground if they had complete control of things. I hope that never happens.
Exactly!:Clap: For 6 years (2001-2007) the Republicans had control of the House of Representatives, Senate, Oval Office and the Supreme Court. Democrats haven't had a voice in government for thoase 6 years. That's the problem.
DevilsWin Wrote:Exactly!:Clap: For 6 years (2001-2007) the Republicans had control of the House of Representatives, Senate, Oval Office and the Supreme Court. Democrats haven't had a voice in government for thoase 6 years. That's the problem.
You are absolutely right, the Republican party has held too much power during that time frame. But the solution is not for the Democrats to suddenly be the ones in charge of everything, either.
People complain that when the president is from one party and Congress is controlled by the other, that very little ever gets done due to fighting. But that is much more preferable to one party getting to ram their entire agenda through uncontested. At least when the two sides are forced to have discussions about the issues, they usually arrive at joint agreements that don't include radical viewpoints from either side.