Forum Index
»
Political Discussion
Let me hear from you repubs. What are your reasons for voting for McSame..
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
Typical liberal. NO SENSE OF HUMOR! 
|
Anonymous
True...there is nothing even remotely humorous about the past 8 years. |
Anonymous
| It's been great for me as well as most of America--course if you are expecting the government to fund your healthcare and want other people to pay your taxes, I could see the last few years as a challenge. |
Anonymous
Let me guess - you are the one has been ranting on just about every thread on DCUM about having to pay taxes to support us middle-class leeches. No surprise whatsoever that the past 8 years have been great for you, but don't confuse what it good for you with what is good for the rest of the country, and indeed, the rest of the world. Have you actually read a newspaper? You are part of a very small minority who considers that the past 8 years have moved this country in the right direction. If there were any worldwide polling done, it would be an even smaller minority. |
Anonymous
And there's a difference between an informed voter and one spewing left-wing nonsense, such as Dubya had a score to settle from his daddy. I don't take people such as yourself even the least bit seriously, and am disgusted that you might actually be able to vote and consider yourself informed. Speaking of BS and incompetency and idiocy, you might want to look in the mirror. Even the most left-wing press outfit does not repeat such nonsense.
So post 9/11 if CLINTON is on the record saying Saddam has WMDs and is dangerous, BUSH 41 is on the record saying Saddam has WMDs and is dangerous, and MANY OTHER world leaders are on the record as the same, all the intelligence estimates says he has them, and he continually defies DOZENS of UN resolutions and kicks inspectors out at random, I think any sane sitting President would take a serious look at Saddam and not want to take any chances. You know, that European "soft power" and paper agreements and other diplomatic tactics only go so far. At some point you need to put some teeth in things, because these people are no joke. Saddam gassed tens of thousands of his own people. What a nice fellow! Saddam was given every opportunity to comply with UN resolutions and he did not. So what would you propose be done? Wave our fingers and say "or else!"
How would we have known that he did NOT have WMD's if we didn't go in there? And are you aware of what Saddam said in his pre-execution debriefings? Oh this is good, hang on a second and I'll come back to it.
Oh yeah, Iraq was just an innocent little soverign nation under the command of a guy that gassed tens of thousands of his own people, and who had mass graves all over the country, continually defied dozens of UN resolutions, and whom everybody believed at the time had or was developing WMDs. Now here's the kicker. While he may or may not have "HAD" them (we still don't know what was on all those trucks streaming across the border into Syria before the war and may never know), but he WAS developing them! The only thing our wonderfully objective and unbiased media ever reported about our weapons inspectors finding post-war was "NO WMDS" and that's it. However there was a bit more to it than that. They DID FIND clandestine weapons programs and labs buried in scientists houses all over the country. They DID FIND botulinium development labs. They DID report that while Saddam didn't posess any current WMDs that he would have been able to produce them within 6 months to a year had the US not intervened. Yeah, the "clandestine" labs were never found while Saddam was in power, and dictating where and when UN inspectors could go anywhere. So he didn't have them. But he would have. Yeah lets just leave him in power though. They're innocent and no threat to anybody. Sure. If you want to trust Saddam to his word then fine, but CLEARLY he was lying through his teeth and being enormously deceptive, and with good reason. He was hiding stuff! Now here's what we managed to get out of Saddam in his post-capture debriefing. He tried everything he could to "keep up appearances" and maintain the illusion that he DID have WMDs to deploy, and even his own military commanders believed it and were shocked when they learned that he didn't really have them. Why did he do this? To maintain his stance against IRAN, another gem of a country. These two countries were not exactly the best of friends, to anybody not very familiar. Saddam said he gambled that the West would not do anything, but unfortunately for him he gambled wrong. He also stated that he had EVERY INTENTION of continuing to persue WMDs via his clandestine programs that nobody knew about as soon as the West lost interest. He gambled wrong there too, thanks to that idiot Dubya. 
Oh yeah, we should be in Afghanistan where OSL really is. Hey wait, isn't THAT a soverign nation too? We should always be invading or fighting any other country than the CURRENT one. It's always the "wrong" war that we're fighting. By the way, our respect for the sovernty of Afghanistan is why we have *not* been allowed to persue OBL there. They won't allow it. They are our ALLIES and we can't just do whatever the heck we want there, get it? So it's not nearly as simple as some of you are claiming. If the U.S. had free reign and unrestricted access to go village to village and mountain top to cavern in that region maybe we would have caught OBL by now. Anyways, OBL is just a figure head. Would be nice to get him, but it'd only be a symbolic victory. Just like anybody in al-Quaeda that you capture or kill, another will take their place.
And all of these "anybody who is stupid enough to vote for McSame" comments work both ways. Anybody who is stupid enough to put a big taxing liberal in office during a time of war when the economy is already struggling will get exactly what THEY deserve too! Liberals have a PATHEIC defense record which is why America immediately put Reps in charge after 9/11. There's a very long history in this country of Dems completely FUBARing defense and national security issues. And domestically, remember the Carter years? Weren't they grand? I've seen several analysts saying that if Obama is elected it'll be like the 2nd term that Carter never had. Carter screwed up so badly and made such a huge mess of things that he got booted out after only one term, just like pretty much every post-WWII Democratic president was of the 20th century. Clinton was the only 2-term Dem, but even that had a few astericks to it. Clinton never won a majority of the popular vote in either of his two elections, but at least Clinton could pass for a moderate. Like Carter, Obama is hard to the left in American politics.
Even a good friend of mine who is a self-admitted Bush hating liberal could put together much better arguments than most of you. WHen this person puts together anti-Bush arguments for me I can at least respect their opinion and actually learn something new (Bush was just avenging his daddy?, puhlease!), but still disagree as I fundamentally have a very different world view. It's no different here, or anywhere really. People have vastly different world views and ways of looking at things, which is why people vote differently too. It's not because they're "stupid" or anything, and if you really believe this you need to look in the mirror. There are things I like and can really appreciate Obama and I do think he could do A LOT of good for this country, especially domestically. As a conservative I could even consider voting for him, but this is simply not the time. At a time of war with a struggling economy, the Republicans have far better ideas but are just lousy at communicating them effectively. I could vote for Obama during peacetime and with an economy that's already strong. Today is not that time, especially considering that Obama has ZERO experience running anything. I admire Obama's idealism and "vision" of how things could be so much better (and they could), but sadly liberals are often full of great ideas but have no friggin clue on how to realistically achieve them and actually get there. You need more than ideas and a bunch of eloquent words to run an entire country during difficult times. So "McSame" it is. Economy has been good despite challenges, the war is being won, no further terrorist attacks at home, and taxes are lower, so I really can't complain. Not entirely thrilled about McCain, but Obama is not the "change" I'm looking for. Anyhow, lunch is over.
|
Anonymous
| Apparently there are a few conservatives and I do mean a few on this site-probably because most conservatives would not waste their time arguing with people who are so myopic about their views. When it comes to taxes--the majority of people who are supporting the tax system are few--top ten percent are paying something like 70% of the taxes--so of course they are going to feel passionate when they are asked to take on even more. I would love love love to see what happened if the middle class were asked to take on as much as the wealthy in terms of tax percentages and sorry expenses are all relative--bottom line is that you should be able to keep a large portion of what you earn no matter what it is that you earn. |
Anonymous
I find that the conservatives are the myopic ones - they don't see the forest, just the one tree. I'd be curious to see what would happen to the economy if there were no middle class. We hold up the economy through consumer spending, proportion of taxes, pay for infrastructure. Where do you get your information? Top 10% pay 70% of taxes? Even in a conservative publication like the Wall Street Journal, I have not come across those figures. |
Anonymous
|
Anonymous
Yes, and Clinton and George HW Bush, both sane sitting presidents, took a serious look at Saddam and decided that his WMD had been contained! They saved us a lot of money and heartache (young men and women who won't come home again) and they did not dangerously destabilize the Middle East. If Iran is a threat now, it's because W seriously weakened Iraq and Iran sees a genuine opportunity to expand its power. It's important not to confuse leadership with stupidity. |
Anonymous
|
This looks like it will be a good read: The Case Against Barack Obama
http://www.amazon.com/dp/1596985666/?tag=bhos2-20 |
Rich
Member Offline
Member Offline
Yep. I guess I'm an elitist, since I believe, for example, that the intellect to be the first black editor of the Harvard Law Review is an important qualification to be president. I don't disqualify McCain for being a goof-off who rebelled against his father the admiral by drifting through the Naval Academy near the bottom of his class, but I don't see it as a plus. McCain's past integrity as one who stood up against his party impressed me, but he has done everything in his power to make the Republican right forget that ever happened, and thereby lost my respect on that front. But the clincher for me is the thought that he will complete the capture of the Supreme Court by the radical right. Even if he pledges to appoint a woman, as someone suggested, I expect that woman would protect women's rights no more than Clarence Thomas protects minority rights. |