Why I am not a Republican

[Wild Cobra]

First off, I started a new thread than continuing to help derail an existing thread.


If you agree with 95% of the Republican platform's stated tactics for achieving those goals (no amnesty for illegals, warrantless wiretapping, increased military presence, tax cuts in the majority of cases, torture), then yes, for most intents and purposes, you're a Republican.
Bullshit. Actions speak louder than words.

No wonder most democrats are libtards. They support the party because of the stated goals, even though they are nothing but bullshit?

I disagree with amnesty, but the republicans want to give it.

I disagree with high federal spending, but the republicans refuse to stop adding their own pork.

I believe in a smaller federal government and republicans believe their policies should supersede states rights.

I could go on. There are only some things the republicans do that I agree with. National security is one of them.

How can I be a republican when I agree with more actions that the libertarian, conservative, and constitution party's practice?

Please. Even though they are not significant, there are more than two parties.

[SpurNation]

WC...it's what I hope that the majority of this country's citizens eventually gather and work together as a common goal.

Our founding fathers constitution warned as much of the current conditions which prevail in our federal government.

Divisional practices are intentional amongst the strong arm parties of the nation that currently rule the direction this country is heading.

We as a people of this nation have the ability to change this but it will take breaking down the walls of deception by these parties in order to achieve that goal.

[clambake]

funny how people, just now, decided to look inward.

i think they're pretending to look inward.

[SpurNation]

funny how people, just now, decided to look inward.

i think they're pretending to look inward.

Naw Clam...I just think we are all pushed to delisional beliefs regardless of political affiliation.

[LnGrrrR]

I disagree with amnesty, but the republicans want to give it.

Really? All of them? Do even a MAJORITY of them want amnesty?


I disagree with high federal spending, but the republicans refuse to stop adding their own pork.

It's called being a politician...


I believe in a smaller federal government and republicans believe their policies should supersede states rights.

The Republicans usually make a big show of states rights. Tell me, which Republicans DON'T support states rights? And in which cases?


How can I be a republican when I agree with more actions that the libertarian, conservative, and constitution party's practice?

Because, on the BIG ISSUES, you don't agree with the Libertarian party. You agree with the War on Iraq, you agree with warrantless wiretapping, and you agree with enhanced interrogation. You may follow their advice ECONOMICALLY, but you don't when it comes to civil liberties, which is a big part of the libertarian platform.

What "conservative" party is there?

And you really want to follow the Constitution party? Feel free... those guys are mostly nutbags.


Please. Even though they are not significant, there are more than two parties.

That's the point though. There are only TWO main parties. Unless you pretty much follow all the principles of another party, and you're hardcore about it, then you fall either into the Democrat or Republican side.

[Wild Cobra]

Really? All of them? Do even a MAJORITY of them want amnesty?
I don't know, but the promenent voices seem to.


The Republicans usually make a big show of states rights. Tell me, which Republicans DON'T support states rights? And in which cases?

That's all it is. Show. Ever follow the actual legislation they pass?


Because, on the BIG ISSUES, you don't agree with the Libertarian party. You agree with the War on Iraq, you agree with warrantless wiretapping, and you agree with enhanced interrogation. You may follow their advice ECONOMICALLY, but you don't when it comes to civil liberties, which is a big part of the libertarian platform.

If we take the largest parties, and include the libertarian party, I agree more with them that others.

How many times must I remind you. Not what the party says, but what the party does. The platform is agreed on by a majority. It doesn't mean everyone is in lockstep. There are plenty of libertarians that take the defense issue different that what the prominent voices and platform says.


What "conservative" party is there?

Conservative Party of the USA (http://www.conservativepartyusa.org/)


And you really want to follow the Constitution party? Feel free... those guys are mostly nutbags.

I wouldn't say that. You find nut cases in any party, and the democrat donkey dick sucking media is only going to show you the nut cases of other parties.

Constitution Party platform (http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php)


That's the point though. There are only TWO main parties. Unless you pretty much follow all the principles of another party, and you're hardcore about it, then you fall either into the Democrat or Republican side.

I follow my own principles. I am not in 100% alignment with any party, and I'm not petty like most people to have to belong to a side that wins.

Now if you help a gun to my head and forced me to register D or R, I would register D. Because I dislike them more than the republicans. That way I can add to their junk mailing costs.

[Wild Cobra]

You know, the only party who has a platform I am 100% in agreement with is the USMJ party. I guess by your definition, I should join them.

United States Marijuana Party (http://www.usmjparty.org/):

Mission Statement


"WE seeks to remove all penalties for adults 18 and over who choose to consume cannabis in a responsible manner."

"We demand an end to the war on productive and otherwise law abiding citizens by the powers that be who claim to protect us."

"We demand the right to use any medication our healthcare providers and we deem fit without government interference."

We demand the release of all people imprisoned on marijuana charges and that their criminal records be expunged.

We demand that all property seized in marijuana raids be returned to the rightful owners at once.

We demand that our law enforcement officers make more efficient use of our tax dollars and use the resources they have at their disposal to go after violent criminals and crimes that actually have victims.

We demand the right to grow marijuana for personal consumption, just as alcohol can be brewed at home legally so long as it is not sold untaxed.

We demand that you stop treating us like second class citizens for consuming something that is less dangerous than alcohol and tobacco, both of which are legal and cause numerous deaths each year. Cannabis has never caused one.

[angrydude]

A partisan blindly defends the structured, organized political party regardless of what they do.

On the other hand you can agree with someone on a lot of things but still maintain a division between you and them.

For example, on the right, fiscal conservatives get thrown under the bus over and over again. Do Republicans really represent their interests? When it comes down to it all Republicans will do is say "tax cuts" and pretend the world is going to be fixed.

On the left a good example of someone who is liberal but not a democrat is Cindy Sheehan. She's anti-war and protesting against Obama. Props to her for consistency.

[NFGIII]

WC...it's what I hope that the majority of this country's citizens eventually gather and work together as a common goal.

Our founding fathers constitution warned as much of the current conditions which prevail in our federal government.

Divisional practices are intentional amongst the strong arm parties of the nation that currently rule the direction this country is heading.

We as a people of this nation have the ability to change this but it will take breaking down the walls of deception by these parties in order to achieve that goal.

Both parties have beome very adept at playing the "we vs. them" game. And it "plays in Peoria" so to say. That's the problem from my viewpoint. We all talk about what is best for the country but the voters have only two real viable parties - Dems and Reps. Wishing/talking/hoping about supporting another canidate outside of those two parties never really materializes to the point where that particular canidate has an actual chance to win. Siphoning off voters from others parties is the most that can happen at this time. Which is sad. The voters ultimately have the power to control their government but too many either don't care and therefore rarely vote, think that they can't make a difference with their one measly vote, diehard party supporters and so on...and there are other reasons as to why this is.

The question is how can this be chnaged. I really don't know. And to a certain point I think that we have gone beyond the point of no return. Nations are born, grow up, get old and eventually die. No nation lasts forever.

[Soul_Patch]

Like i try and tell my grandfather every political season. I LOVE the idea of the conservative party. now if they actually practiced what they preached, i would be a card carying republican, hell id work campaigns...

Fact is though, they dont. So when it all boils down to it, i have to sit the fence and see how both sides weigh out on issues, then vote the lesser of the two evils.

The thing that ALWAYS kills the republican party for me is the fact that they have extremist religious nutjobs so far in bed with them...i cannot, in my right mind, vote for anything these guys support. In my opion, its just as bad as if i was to vote for Al Queida to run the country...same ideas, different target.

[coyotes_geek]

True or False: If the Republican party would take a more libertarian view on social issues like abortion and same sex marriage they would be better off for it. The new stance on abortion, "we think you'll burn in hell, but it's your choice". The new stance on same sex marriage, "we think you'll burn in hell, but it's not an issue the federal government should concern itself with".

Just curious what people's positions are on this. I'm not asking whether or not that would make you personally more prone to vote for or against republicans. But whether or not you think this would make the republican party more appealing to the masses, thus improving their chances at winning elections.

[Cry Havoc]

I'd probably be a republican if they were actually a conservative party. Sadly, that's not the case anymore.

[Wild Cobra]

True or False: If the Republican party would take a more libertarian view on social issues like abortion and same sex marriage they would be better off for it. The new stance on abortion, "we think you'll burn in hell, but it's your choice". The new stance on same sex marriage, "we think you'll burn in hell, but it's not an issue the federal government should concern itself with".

Just curious what people's positions are on this. I'm not asking whether or not that would make you personally more prone to vote for or against republicans. But whether or not you think this would make the republican party more appealing to the masses, thus improving their chances at winning elections.
I would be happy if republicans did just that. Be for the republic as their name implies, instead of federal control.

States rights all the way.

[Winehole23]

True or False: If the Republican party would take a more libertarian view on social issues like abortion and same sex marriage they would be better off for it. The new stance on abortion, "we think you'll burn in hell, but it's your choice". The new stance on same sex marriage, "we think you'll burn in hell, but it's not an issue the federal government should concern itself with". I'd not be swayed if the GOP changed it's window dressing. There's little doubt it is trying now to capture the independents who bolted last year. Some of them will come back, mostly of their own accord. Others, like me, see the problem as being more institutional than ideological.

Corporate interests have captured the politicians and the process, regardless of party affiliation. If conservatism (liberty, traditional republicanism) is to thrive and prevail in any substantive sense, IMO it will be as opponents of the current system. Unfortunately for rock-ribbed conservatives, all the nutbags have enrolled under this banner. Differentiation will be a problem, and any anti-system movement marginalizes its own effectiveness by placing itself outside of the fecal duopoly of R's and D's.


Just curious what people's positions are on this. I'm not asking whether or not that would make you personally more prone to vote for or against republicans. But whether or not you think this would make the republican party more appealing to the masses, thus improving their chances at winning elections.Unfortunately, yes. Pea-brained and johnny come lately libertarians will (by and large) put themselves in harness to the GOP, who will continue to do lip service to libertarian and republican ideals, while working actively against the substance of these ideals. Those who resist the establishmentarian bridle will continue to to be called crackpots.

I hope I'm wrong about this, but I'm not too sanguine about third party chances or the revival of libertarianism. It's more nominal than substantive in the hands of the GOP. An electoral ruse. No more.

On topic, I think the ruse has decent chances for electoral success in the face of a continuing recession, runaway spending and a failing war in Afghanistan. As I expressed above, I also think this bodes ill for libertarianism per se. The GOP will continue to own libertarian ideology without working for its goals.

[Winehole23]

Bullshit. Actions speak louder than words.This was LGNR's point. IMO there's something to it. You take constantly demonize the D's, castgate RINO's and hoist up the GOP as the lesser of two evils. Why carp about RINO's (i.e., nominal republicans) at all, if you haven't cast in with the GOP and it's electoral fortunes?

[exstatic]

True or False: If the Republican party would take a more libertarian view on social issues like abortion and same sex marriage they would be better off for it. The new stance on abortion, "we think you'll burn in hell, but it's your choice". The new stance on same sex marriage, "we think you'll burn in hell, but it's not an issue the federal government should concern itself with".

Just curious what people's positions are on this. I'm not asking whether or not that would make you personally more prone to vote for or against republicans. But whether or not you think this would make the republican party more appealing to the masses, thus improving their chances at winning elections.

I'd have to see action, like the repeal of the dumbass DoMa, led by the GOP, not dragged kicking and screaming on a Demo wave. Politicians say anything, and I believe none of it. I strictly go by actions, which is why I think the Religious Right are dumbasses. The GOP has been shining them on forever, with basically nothing to show for it but the DoMa, which has stopped exactly zero states from enacting same sex marriage. Abortion is still legal, too, in spite of a six year run of the trifecta: GOP President/Senate/House, and a couple of SCOTUS appointments.

[Banzai]

Republicans and Democrats both have issues..I rather not be on either side. http://www.threadbombing.com/data/media/2/obusha.gif (http://www.threadbombing.com/details.php?image_id=3556)

[Winehole23]

The verdict seems to be nobody buys it, WC. Your self-representation is evidently wrong.

Coffeetime. :wakeup

[mogrovejo]

Meh... I'm not American, but a party that is good enough to Jeff Flake would be good enough for me. Politics is the art of possible.

Have you ever read Russell Kirk's "Chirping Sectaries"?

[Winehole23]

No. But I might.

Can you put it in a nutshell, mogrovejo?

[Winehole23]

Since Mill, the libertarians have forgotten nothing and learned nothing. Mill dreaded, and they dread today, obedience to the dictates of custom. In our time, the real danger is that custom and prescription and tradition may be overthrown utterly among usfor has not that occurred already in most of the world?-by neoterism, the lust for novelty; and that men will be no better than the flies of a summer, oblivious to the wisdom of their ancestors, and forming every opinion merely under the pressure of the fad, the foible, the passion of the hour.Apt. Except for the use of the subjunctive, even in 1981. Custom, prescription and tradition are already overthrown, and we are no better than the flies of summer.


I mean that the libertarians make up what T. S. Eliot called a “chirping sect,” an ideological clique forever splitting into sects still smaller and odder, but rarely conjugating. Such petty political sectaries Edmund Burke pictured as “the insects of the hour,” as noisy as they are ineffectual against the conservative power of the browsing cattle in an English pasture. If one has chirping sectaries for friends, one doesn't need any enemies.Cutting.


The libertarian takes the state for the great oppressor. But the conservative finds that the state is ordained of God. In Burke's phrases, “He who gave us our nature to be perfected by our virtue, willed also the necessary means of its perfection. He willed therefore the state-its connexion with the source and original archetype of all perfection.” Without the state, man's condition is poor, nasty, brutish, and short-as Augustine argued, many centuries before Hobbes. The libertarians confound the state with government. But government-as Burke continued --”is a contrivance of human wisdom to provide for human wants. “Among the more important of those human wants is “a sufficient restraint upon their passions. Society requires not only that the passions of individuals should be subjected, but that even in the mass and body, as well as in the individual, the inclinations of men should frequently be thwarted, their will controlled, and their passions brought into subjection. This can be done only by a power out of themselves; and not, in the exercise of its function, subject to that will and to those passions which it is its office to bridle and subdue.” In short, a primary function of government is restraint; and that is anathema to libertarians, though an article of faith to conservatives.State as moral katechon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katechon). This idea is conservative, but it is the conservatism of Jean Bodin and the feudal state, not of whiggish English liberty. Hoisting up Mill as the exemplar of North American libertarianism has its problems, though I will readily agree it adopted utilitarianism as its tacit philosophy long ago. Conservatism in the North American sense, I would argue, is the preservation of certain customary English liberties and our form of government. It is Kirk's reliance on a classical, quasi-feudal, quasi-Paulinian concept of order that is abstract and universalizing in my opinion. Not the promotion of distinctively Anglo-American rights and liberties.



It is of high importance, indeed, that American conservatives dissociate themselves altogether from the little sour remnant called libertarians. In a time requiring long views and self-denial, alliance with a faction founded upon doctrinaire selfishness would be absurd-and practically damaging. It is not merely that cooperation with a tiny chirping sect would be valueless politically; more, such an association would tend to discredit the conservatives, giving aid and comfort to the collective adversaries of ordered freedom. When heaven and earth have passed away, perhaps the conservative mind and the libertarian mind may be joined in synthesis-but not until then. The sort of conservatism Kirk touts is an enbalmed relic, not a living corpus. It has already been dissolved. The age of long views and self-denial is gone, unless real scarcity returns. Which is a real possibility. But I doubt most Americans have the self-discipline or inclination to receive it, much less to transmit it as culture.


Meanwhile, I venture to predict, the more intelligent and conscientious persons within the libertarian remnant will tend to settle for politics as the art of the possible, so shifting into the conservative camp. In America, there is no conservative camp. We have two neoliberal parties. And fringy outliers.

Conservatives in Kirk's sense range with the outliers. With the other chirping sectaries, with the traditional republicans and the libertarians he spits at.

[Winehole23]

Meh... I'm not American, but a party that is good enough to Jeff Flake would be good enough for me. Politics is the art of possible.For Ron Paul, whom I admire very much, to be elected US Rep, it was expedient for him to join the GOP. But that is no reason I should as well, even though I voted for him.

[Nbadan]

That's how the GOP makes it's comeback i guess.

There is no Constitution Party, they will have to break off from the GOP if they want a platform. The GOP is now led by the James Dobson wing, hence Sarah Palin...

[Winehole23]

There is a Constitution Party. I think it is the third or fourth largest political party in the USA. It isn't part of the GOP.

Remember Chuck Baldwin?

[Nbadan]

Yeah, but that's not the same group throwing around the Constitution, like they really cared for it during Bush, at these Teabagger rallies...

[Winehole23]

I'm sorry, were we talking about them?

And what makes are you so sure the Constitution Party wasn't at the *tea parties*? Seems like they're much in the same vein to me.

[Nbadan]

It doesn't exist as a viable part of the GOP - yes....

[Winehole23]

No. It exists as an independent political party. Do you want me to post the wiki?

[Winehole23]

The primary function of government, the conservatives say, is to keep the peace: by repelling foreign enemies, by maintaining the bed of justice domestically. When government goes much beyond this end, it falls into difficulty, not being contrived for the management of the whole of life. Thus far, indeed libertarian and conservative hold something in common. But the libertarians, rashly hurrying to an opposite extreme, would deprive government of effective power to undertake the common defense or to restrain the passionate and the unjust. I suppose this might be relevant to the Ashcroft thread.

[Wild Cobra]

The verdict seems to be nobody buys it, WC. Your self-representation is evidently wrong.

Coffeetime. :wakeup
And at one time, most people thought the earth was flat.

[Winehole23]

And at one time, most people thought the earth was flat.So now you're Copernicus? :rollin

[Wild Cobra]

So now you're Copernicus? :rollin
No, I'm just trying to be nice in pointing out your stupidity, and others.

[Winehole23]

Well, thanks for being so nice about it. Restraint becomes you, WC. :tu

[Wild Cobra]

Well, thanks for being so nice about it. Restraint becomes you, WC. :tu
I was until you made more snide remarks.

Honestly, must I be either democrat or republican? Why an either or? I'm sorry, but that mentality really bothers me.

Is defending republicans against unwarranted attacks enough to make me republican? There is so much out right slander against republicans on this board, why should I voice my honest disagreements about them? Is it because I seldom join in when they are wrong that I am a republican?

Buy a clue. I'm not going to help kick them when they are unfairly kicked already. Bring up accurate, reasonable things about republicans, and stop the slander, and I'll criticize them too. I just won;t help with the bullshit that you are willing to.

[Winehole23]

Honestly, must I be either democrat or republican? Why an either or? I'm sorry, but that mentality really bothers me.You don't have to pick. But sometimes it seems like you have a secret thing for the GOP, the way you police ideological purity for it.


Is defending republicans against unwarranted attacks enough to make me republican? There is so much out right slander against republicans on this board, why should I voice my honest disagreements about them? Is it because I seldom join in when they are wrong that I am a republican?Great. Take up your cudgels against those who slander the GOP. I agree that doesn't make you a party member, but it does make it appear that you have taken their part. It goes to partiality.



Buy a clue. I'm not going to help kick them when they are unfairly kicked already. Bring up accurate, reasonable things about republicans, and stop the slander, and I'll criticize them too. I just won;t help with the bullshit that you are willing to.You do not care for or admire the GOP, yet you protect them from the slanders of their adversaries. Why?

[SpurNation]

Yeah, but that's not the same group throwing around the Constitution, like they really cared for it during Bush, at these Teabagger rallies...

How much do we really know regarding Huesein's (non) or involvement with 9/11?

How much did Clinton NOT make public even though we were being attacked at every corner of the world. How much was the first attack on the world trade center NOT a clue as to what was being intended by these radical groups?

How far would you have let it go before doing something about it?

Was not loosing almost 3,000 innocent lives on our own soil not enough?

Bush argueably was not the perfect person to run this country....but he was the perfect person to protect this nation from physical aggression.

Time to move on and hope which ever president that's in office can lead this nation back to prosperity and not to a world adherence agenda.

[Cry Havoc]

I was until you made more snide remarks.

Honestly, must I be either democrat or republican? Why an either or? I'm sorry, but that mentality really bothers me.

Is defending republicans against unwarranted attacks enough to make me republican? There is so much out right slander against republicans on this board, why should I voice my honest disagreements about them? Is it because I seldom join in when they are wrong that I am a republican?

Buy a clue. I'm not going to help kick them when they are unfairly kicked already. Bring up accurate, reasonable things about republicans, and stop the slander, and I'll criticize them too. I just won;t help with the bullshit that you are willing to.

Because the right-wingers haven't made any egregious, idiotic attacks against democrats on this board.... right? Do you not remember the iPod thread?

[Wild Cobra]

You don't have to pick. But sometimes it seems like you have a secret thing for the GOP, the way you police ideological purity for it.
I do no such thing. You have a selective memory to believe that.

Great. Take up your cudgels against those who slander the GOP. I agree that doesn't make you a party member, but it does make it appear that you have taken their part. It goes to partiality.
And I assume you haven't noticed the dimes I stood up for democrats. Sure, it's rare, but I do at times.

You do not care for or admire the GOP, yet you protect them from the slanders of their adversaries. Why?
Because I despise slander, and those who slander. A mistake is one thing, but look at how much the republicans repeatedly get slandered. People believe it, and look who's president now. I didn't want McCain to be president either, but he was the lesser of two evils.

[Wild Cobra]

Because the right-wingers haven't made any egregious, idiotic attacks against democrats on this board.... right? Do you not remember the iPod thread?
I don't recall reading the iPod thread.

Do the politicians repeat the slander of the right wingers who slander?

I only see democrat politicians eager to use the slanderous quotes of others.

[Winehole23]

I do no such thing. You have a selective memory to believe that.Perhaps. You don't complain about RINO's?


And I assume you haven't noticed the dimes I stood up for democrats. Sure, it's rare, but I do at times.I don't know what this proves, but I don't doubt it.


Because I despise slander, and those who slander. A mistake is one thing, but look at how much the republicans repeatedly get slandered.Bullshit. It's your part time job. You slander anyone who disagrees with you. As a matter of course, almost. Carelessly and without remorse. And your contention that the slander comes only from one side of the aisle betrays, ah, selective attention.


People believe it, and look who's president now. I didn't want McCain to be president either, but he was the lesser of two evils.Hoisting up the GOP as the lesser of two evils. Is partiality. Not quite partisanship, but a near neighbor.

[LnGrrrR]

True or False: If the Republican party would take a more libertarian view on social issues like abortion and same sex marriage they would be better off for it. The new stance on abortion, "we think you'll burn in hell, but it's your choice". The new stance on same sex marriage, "we think you'll burn in hell, but it's not an issue the federal government should concern itself with".

Just curious what people's positions are on this. I'm not asking whether or not that would make you personally more prone to vote for or against republicans. But whether or not you think this would make the republican party more appealing to the masses, thus improving their chances at winning elections.

That would go a long way towards getting my vote; however, the warrantless wiretapping/torture/state secrets thing would still stall me at the polls. Plus I think overall they'd lose more people than they'd get.

[LnGrrrR]

I was until you made more snide remarks.

Honestly, must I be either democrat or republican? Why an either or? I'm sorry, but that mentality really bothers me.

Is defending republicans against unwarranted attacks enough to make me republican? There is so much out right slander against republicans on this board, why should I voice my honest disagreements about them? Is it because I seldom join in when they are wrong that I am a republican?

Buy a clue. I'm not going to help kick them when they are unfairly kicked already. Bring up accurate, reasonable things about republicans, and stop the slander, and I'll criticize them too. I just won;t help with the bullshit that you are willing to.

I'd say it's your tendency to selectively choose which sources you trust, and which you don't. It's that bias that leads me to side you with the Republicans. Rarely do you assume the best of a Democratic politician but you're quick to provide outs to Republican politicians. You're a master of the ad hominem.

[LnGrrrR]

You do not care for or admire the GOP, yet you protect them from the slanders of their adversaries. Why?

This is the reason why no one thinks Marcus Bryant is a Republican; because he (forcefully) voices his distaste for both parties. Also, ice cream, sunshine, and rainbows. :)

[LnGrrrR]

How much do we really know regarding Huesein's (non) or involvement with 9/11?

How much do we REALLY know about Bush's involvement with 9/11? This is the same sort of logic you're using.


How far would you have let it go before doing something about it?

Yes, because one attack on us justifies the use of any means to stop the next one, right?


Time to move on and hope which ever president that's in office can lead this nation back to prosperity and not to a world adherence agenda.

Why "go it alone" if we can gather allies to help us?

[SpurNation]

How much do we REALLY know about Bush's involvement with 9/11? This is the same sort of logic you're using.
At the time we all were looking at who might have been involved with attacking the world trade towers. Which by definition was an act of war on this nation.

Perhaps it was a great opportunity for Bush to indoctrinate his own agenda regarding Iraq...I don't know...but seems like it were as of today.

But other than WMD's the reports do verify that Sadam was actively helping those who were the one's making act's of war on the United States.



Yes, because one attack on us justifies the use of any means to stop the next one, right?
I wouldn't say "any means". But...what would you have done?




Why "go it alone" if we can gather allies to help us?

Totally agree with this. And the United States did have allied support in Iraq as well as UN troops in Afghanistan. If our allies had doubts about the underlying reports would they have made the commitments they made?

[LnGrrrR]

At the time we all were looking at who might have been involved with attacking the world trade towers. Which by definition was an act of war on this nation.

Yes, and the people attacking us weren't related to Saddam.

Saddam might have been actively helping people who wanted to attack the United States (though you'd have to provide a link for me to know exactly what you're talking about), but he wasn't involved in 9/11. That's a key fact.


I wouldn't say "any means". But...what would you have done?

Probably sent black ops teams after Osama, try to capture him and bring him to justice; failing that, shoot him. I don't think I would've used it as an excuse to help out Iraq get rid of its dictator. Iraq and Iran were counter to each other, and kept each other in check, plus, I don't feel the United States job is to police other nations. Finally, the belief that by instituting a democracy will make us safer in the States: I'm dubious to the actual validity of this claim, but only time will tell it seems. However, that assumption also assumes that aggressions would be taken out on us rather than their centuries-long internecine rivalries.



Totally agree with this. And the United States did have allied support in Iraq as well as UN troops in Afghanistan. If our allies had doubts about the underlying reports would they have made the commitments they made?

We had two decent allies, IIRC. UK and Australia. The rest of the nations that were supporting us in Iraq were mostly symbolic. We certainly lifted the majority of the weight.

[Winehole23]

In Afghanistan we have a joke about the ISAF. It stands for I Saw Americans Fight.

[ElNono]

LOL, this thread delivers. :tu

The OP is perhaps one of the biggest GOP apologist in this board.
Quick to jump to conclusions when the Democrats are accused of shit, trusting ANY source in the process, while subjecting any GOP attacks to a higher information standard.
Even when the reports are accurate, then he pulls the RINO apology.

WC, your modus operandi is getting old. If you want to pass as something other than a partisan hack you need to do a lot better than that.

[101A]

I'd not be swayed if the GOP changed it's window dressing. There's little doubt it is trying now to capture the independents who bolted last year. Some of them will come back, mostly of their own accord. Others, like me, see the problem as being more institutional than ideological.

Corporate interests have captured the politicians and the process, regardless of party affiliation. If conservatism (liberty, traditional republicanism) is to thrive and prevail in any substantive sense, IMO it will be as opponents of the current system. Unfortunately for rock-ribbed conservatives, all the nutbags have enrolled under this banner. Differentiation will be a problem, and any anti-system movement marginalizes its own effectiveness by placing itself outside of the fecal duopoly of R's and D's.

Unfortunately, yes. Pea-brained and johnny come lately libertarians will (by and large) put themselves in harness to the GOP, who will continue to do lip service to libertarian and republican ideals, while working actively against the substance of these ideals. Those who resist the establishmentarian bridle will continue to to be called crackpots.

I hope I'm wrong about this, but I'm not too sanguine about third party chances or the revival of libertarianism. It's more nominal than substantive in the hands of the GOP. An electoral ruse. No more.

On topic, I think the ruse has decent chances for electoral success in the face of a continuing recession, runaway spending and a failing war in Afghanistan. As I expressed above, I also think this bodes ill for libertarianism per se. The GOP will continue to own libertarian ideology without working for its goals.


For those of you wondering what a good post looks like ^^^^ should be bookmarked.