 |
| |
|
|
Pekka
|
 |
em seu burro dos pais!
Feb 2002
time: 07:24
|
|
"I'm a Republican because I believe that the private sector is usually (but not always) superior to govenment spending."
So you must support pro life as well.
" I believe that free trade and capitalism are good things"
Yeah for who? YOU? Or the guy in China sowing your Nike shirts so you can buy them cheaper, err wait no, so the Nike makes more profit, so they can get more government breaks, because they'r enot making enough profits in fact, and tax breaks, so they can invest aka give better bonus options for the managment who are fat white americans who look more evil than Cheney themselves, so they can buy more guns and lobby the what ever it is that needs to be lobbied. Is that what you want? good for who I ASK YOU!=? Good for the rich!
" and I consider corporations to be forces for good, not evil."
So now corporations are an entity with black and white status, good or evil, or in your case, all are good? Is tobacco company good? They kill people legally! And make profit doing so. How is this good?
" All he wants to do is spend, spend, spend, spend and in doing so he doesn't consider how he can use the market and government to achieve his aims rather than simply throwing government money at the problem."
Oh so you're the economy professor now? Who knows better, administration or you? That's right. You don't know what you're talking about. The economy is on the fastest rise in many years right now.
Yes, wolf in sheeps clothing.
You're not a real republican. Party traitor!
Just trolling  . I myself hate party politics anyway. It's all about the party these days, not the people. Power tripping bastards.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MalevolentLight
|
|
High Above
Jul 1999
time: 00:24
|
|
I don't think you agree 80% of the time number 1. Number 2 you would vote for the most liberal man in the senate? A guy who is against corporations and against the private sector? And you talk about diplomacy, but Bush's father is part of the reason we're in this mess. Were it not for his "diplomacy" saddam would have been gone in '90. So lets rephrase this topic then. Why would you vote for kerry over bush if you are supposedly a conservative? It's no big secret that Kerry is even left of Ted Kennedy. He's even left of Hillary Clinton and you are hoping he will curb spending? You must be in denial or something.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MalevolentLight
|
|
High Above
Jul 1999
time: 00:24
|
|
quote:
#1, it's a very, very sad indictment on the current Republican Party where such a liberal Senator will spend LESS than the President. "Compassionate Conservatism" just means being a religious wacko and spending up the ass. Clinton never even asked for this much spending from his Congress. Kerry with a Republican Congress leads to gridlock, which is ok by me.
|
We are in a state of war number 1. Number 2 you obviously haven't read about kerry's plans for his spending. You really think that little 2% hike on the supposed "rich" is going to pay for everything he has planned?
quote:
#2, Bush's father is NOT part of the reason we are in this mess. Our goal in 1991 was to drive Iraq from Kuwait. There was no mandate to go in and take out Saddam (why would there be from simply invading a country). Our forces were not set up to do an invation of Iraq, we didn't have the supplies necessary to go to Baghdad. And there would be no domestic support for a exercise in nation building after taking down Saddam. |
Actually the troops were ordered by Bush to stop at Baghdad. Schwarzkopf was fully prepared to go in and take out Saddam. They didn't go in because of pressure from middle eastern "allies" and they didn't want to disrupt the balance of power by deposing saddam. Also we had a far larger coalition in that war, but I am guessing countries like France would object to actually removing Saddam.
quote:
haha, you should stick to Civ2, you obviously don't know enough about politics to avoid stepping over yourself. Entitlement programs are in the fiscal column (ya know, cause they cost money). Being a "social liberal" means you support personal freedom involving things like civil liberties, abortion, drugs, censorship etc. |
Being socially liberal also entails supporting things like illegal immigration and YES entitlement programs. So yes they do conflict with each other.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Imran Siddiqui
|
 |
The Potterverse
Jan 1970
time: 00:24
|
|
quote:
We are in a state of war number 1. Number 2 you obviously haven't read about kerry's plans for his spending. You really think that little 2% hike on the supposed "rich" is going to pay for everything he has planned? |
So a state of war makes all of Bush's domestic spending warrented? Don't think. Yes, I have read of Kerry's plans, at least half of them won't be enacted and won't make it out of committee.
quote:
the troops were ordered by Bush to stop at Baghdad. Schwarzkopf was fully prepared to go in and take out Saddam. They didn't go in because of pressure from middle eastern "allies" and they didn't want to disrupt the balance of power by deposing saddam. |
Actually Schwarzkopf agreed to end the war that midnight (Washington time) and still thinks that it was a good idea that we didn't go into Baghdad. Btw, you think that we had the logistics to chase Saddam across Iraq? You think he'd stay in Baghdad if the army was right there? Do you think we had the number of troops to occupy the country and guide them in a change of government?
And yes, we also didn't go in because our allies told us that they only signed on to liberate Kuwait, not to take out Iraq. About the 'balance of power', how much do you know of the Middle East? I'd prefer Saddam in power rather than a power vacuum filled by fundamentalists or Iranians.
Oh, btw, this is what Schwarzkopf had to say about not going to Baghdad:
quote:
Q: People always [ask] this--why didn't you go to Baghdad and finish off the job?
Schwarzkopf: On the question of going to Baghdad. If you remember the Vietnam war, we had no international legitimacy for what we did. As a result we, first of all, lost the battle of world public opinion and eventually we lost the battle at home.
In the Gulf War we had great international legitimacy in the form of eight United Nations Resolutions, every one of which said "Kick Iraq out of Kuwait", did not say one word about going into Iraq, taking Baghdad, conquering the whole country and hanging Saddam Hussein. That's point number one.
Point number two, had we gone on to Baghdad, I don't believe the French would have gone and I'm quite sure that the Arab coalition would not have gone, the coalition would have ruptured and the only people that would have gone would have been the United Kingdom and the United States of America.
And, oh by the way, I think we'd still be there, we'd be like a dinosaur in a tar pit, we could not have gotten out and we'd still be the occupying power and we'd be paying one hundred percent of all the costs to administer all of Iraq.
Thirdly, I don't think we could have found Saddam Hussein if we'd done that. We forget the lessons of Panama. We had ten thousand Americans on the ground in Panama before we went into that very small country, we still couldn't find a fellow named Noriega, so what makes you think that we would go into a nation the size of Iraq and be able to find one person who has all the ability in the world to escape and hide and fly out of the country.
But I think, more importantly, there's a strategic consideration. Saddam Hussein portrayed that war from the very beginning as "This is not a war against Iraqi aggression against Kuwait. This is the Western colonial lackey friends of Israel coming in to destroy the only nation that dare stand up to Israel, that is Iraq".
Had we proceeded to go on into Iraq and take all of Iraq, I think that you would have millions of people in that part of the world who would say Saddam was right, that that was the objective.
Instead we went in, we did what the United Nations mandate asked us to do and we left and we didn't ask for anything. We didn't leave permanent military forces over there, we didn't demand territory, we didn't demand bases, and the Arabs became convinced that the West was willing to deal with them evenhandedly which has led directly, in my mind, to the progress that's going on at the peace table an.. between Israel and the Arabs and the Palestinians. It never would have happened if Desert Storm hadn't occurred.
So the bottom line, as far as I'm concerned, is that sure, emotionally I would have loved to have gone to Baghdad and grabbed Saddam Hussein, but this was not an emotional decision, it was a strategic decision, and strategically we were smart enough to win the war and win the peace. |
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/front...warzkopf/7.html
Emphasis mine.
quote:
Being socially liberal also entails supporting things like illegal immigration and YES entitlement programs. |
No. Illegal immigration and entitlement programs have nothing to do with supporting civil rights (ie, socially liberal). Entitlement programs are a part of being FISCALLY liberal.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Guynemer
|
|
From under what rock did this ML fellow emerge from, anyway?
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:24.
Apolyton Time is 00:24. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
05-09-2004 10:25
|