Suck it up UG Bush bitches

Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by justbill_redux, Feb 5, 2006.

Draft saved Draft deleted
  1. RuffToy

    RuffToy

    Messages:
    5,161
    When the Libertarian party backed Howard Stern for gov of NY, they lost all credibility. (I am a Stern fan, but come on, who's kidding who)

    Mr. Maggoo must have busy that year.
  2. curious

    curious

    Messages:
    1,872
    Chuck Norris?
  3. its_mousey

    its_mousey

    Messages:
    1,095
    Hmmm. Interesting post.

    1) Although the ol' Gipper has been referred to as "The Great Communicator" (self ascribed, perhaps?), I wouldn't be so quick to place him with the likes of Lincoln, FDR, JFK and Chuck Norris.

    2) However, I do agree w/your observation that once a politican starts playing politics, no matter how radical their views were coming in, they soon moderate their positions. But I think is more of a result of America's social/political culture, which is generally moderate in nature, than with the self-serving motives to perpetuate one's power.

    Of course, politicians pander for votes and will say whatever they deem is necessary to get their asses (re)elected. However, what they say must be tailormade to the political consensus of the time. If their speeches stray too far to the right or left, they will alienate a large portion of Americans (unless of course, they're only running for office in some small town).

    That's why there hasn't been and there will never be a viable socialist party in the U.S. Such a political party is deemed too radical.

    Obviously, there has been some exceptions, one of which is happening today w/the radical right co-opting the Republican Party.

    3) As for your assessment that "a strong libertarian party, in the spirit of Jefferson," "will never happen" - it's a yes and no. You're probably right that there never will be a viable libertarian party, the same way there will never be a serious socialist contender. They'll be deemed "too radical."

    However, in the very unlikely event that a "3rd party" garners significant support nationwide and threatens to steal enough votes from either the Republicans or Democrats, that 3rd party's platform will be quickly absorbed by the Big Two and thus rendered moot. This is exactly what happened to Perot's party. His sole issue was controlling the budget deficit and to the dismay of the Big Two, alot of people were listening. Of course, the Big Two also had the deficit on their platforms, but it wasn't anywhere as clear and persuasive as Perot's. Although Perot no longer posed a serious challenge after the 1988 election, the fact that the Big Two adopted his platform can be deemed in some ways as a success.

    Although a strong libertarian party (or any 3rd party) has a very small chance of bumping one of the Big Two, its ideology/platform can be adopted if there is enough general support.

    Damn. I can't believe we're having such an in depth political science discussion in a whore board!!! Go figure!

    *Squeak!*
    Last edited: Feb 9, 2006
  4. RuffToy

    RuffToy

    Messages:
    5,161
    Nice concept but will NEVER happen. The US gov't is an institution primarilary built on protecting it's own assets first. Like a locomotive charging down the tracks out of control. It may be able to be nudged slightly, but no monumental changes can occur, otherwise the train derails. Perhaps a lean in a direction but the pull is always to the centrist position, which protects the institution. Take Reagan for example, when he was running for Pres, many were fearful he would push the nuclear button, thought he was a war monger. Won the election and gravity pulled him toward the center. And became one of this country's greatest Pres. Look at Hillary, (maybe poor example), but when that liberal loudmouth shows signs of Presidential desire she muddies her liberal statements with conservative speak. Just read in the paper today where Hillary is busting Bush's balls about not being able to find the tallest man in Afghanistan and capturing or killing him. Here, she's pandering to the right to show her pseudo-conservative tendencies. A transparent attempt in future positioning. (What a tool!)

    Bottom line - Politicians think elections, next elections, personal ramifications FIRST....then being a politician/statesman/representative SECOND.
  5. njbandit

    njbandit

    Messages:
    129
    Of course you know in New Jersey, the deceased always vote Democratic. Not that it matters much anyways, because both parties are pretty much crooked anyways in our state.
  6. lamont5123

    lamont5123

    Messages:
    2,415
    Rob,

    Under the agreement that created the first Allied Coalition for the 1991 Persian Gulf War, the forces could not have gone on to Baghdad.

    It was forbidden under the pact. That was the only way to get the Arab nations to sign on.

    The agreement only stipulated that Iraqi forces were to be ejected from Kuwait.

    The first President Bush stated that had the Allied Coalition tried to go on to Baghdad, the alliance would have immediately fallen apart.
  7. robnotbob

    robnotbob

    Messages:
    2,912
    A close family member (Army Ranger) was in the 1st Gulf War and he told me that they were about 50 miles from Bagdad and they all wanted to go in and finish the job.

    After 9/11, (he had subsequently left the service), he joined the reserves and was called to duty. He met up with a former buddy of his who was technically now his superior. When he got to virtually the same part of the country they had been in prior, they looked at each other and said, "What the fuck are we doing back in this shithole of a country?"
  8. Ozzy

    Ozzy

    Messages:
    15,725
    If Bush had gone into Baghdad which he didn't have UN approval for we'd prob had seen something like 9/11 10 years earlier than we did. I also thought he should have finished the job, but the world thought differently.
  9. Rokin

    Rokin

    Messages:
    2,846
    I disagree with this one. At the time I was pissed at George the first for not going in and finishing the job. Years later I read an excerpt from his book which explained that his people told him it would be a quagmire if we went in and took Iraq. Smart move not to go in and it is unfortunate that W didn’t talk to his poppa first before making the move.
    I totally agree with this one. The government should stay out of people’s lives unless they are hurting someone else. Legalize gambling, drugs and prostitution. Taxes will rise, organized crime will go out of business and the Government will save a huge amount of money by not wasting funds on law enforcement/lawyers and corrections in arresting, prosecuting and incarcerating people who are not hurting anyone and just looking to have a good time.
  10. un4given

    un4given

    Messages:
    958
    Gavy, if you ever run for office, im voting for you. Im sick and tired of "liberals" and "conservatives" who are neither.
  11. lamont5123

    lamont5123

    Messages:
    2,415
    Great analysis, Gavy.

    Keep it coming.
  12. Gavvy Cravath

    Gavvy Cravath Moderator Emeritus

    Messages:
    12,971
    Call it what you want, but when rthe current President's term is up, we will have had 20 years of very mediocre presidents. No, this is not as bad as the post-Polk pre-Lincoln eras, but Clinton and W. Bush ran on left (for the former) and right (for the latter) platforms and basically were centrists at heart. The first Bush's main mistake was not going into Bahgdad and finishing off the job. I shake my head every time I think about a siting president..winning a war...and losing the election the next year. He did not do his homework, he did not campaign well and he DESERVED to lose.

    This country needs a strong libertarian party, in the spirit of Jefferson. The Declaration of Independence is a beautiful piece of libertarian writing. Along came the constitution and limited the "rights and freedoms" won in the Revolution. Less government, less taxation, more freedom to the people. The two party system is an ugly one. And tis is what hold the people back more than race, poverty levels, immigration. The real tyrants are holding political offices.

    Gavy
  13. Ozzy

    Ozzy

    Messages:
    15,725
    Number one democrats vote right down the party line as much as the GOP and if it turns out anyone in the Bush administration IS guilty of this they should burn for treason.


    Hows that for a Bush supporters opinion.... though I'm not a republican.


    note: Bush supporter doesn't mean I love the guy or think he's the best since sliced bread... but he's a hell of allot better than the two knuckle heads the Dems ran against him the last two elections.
  14. SlickWilly

    SlickWilly

    Messages:
    8,226
    Now you know the Bush supporters here are just going to say it's propoganda from the Liberal press. Same guys who vote Republican right down the line and don't even look at who they're voting for.
  15. justbill_redux

    justbill_redux King Missile

    Messages:
    3,923
    Feb. 13, 2006 issue - Newly released court papers could put holes in the defense of Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby, in the Valerie Plame leak case. Lawyers for Libby, and White House allies, have repeatedly questioned whether Plame, the wife of White House critic Joe Wilson, really had covert status when she was outed to the media in July 2003. But special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald found that Plame had indeed done "covert work overseas" on counterproliferation matters in the past five years, and the CIA "was making specific efforts to conceal" her identity, according to newly released portions of a judge's opinion. (A CIA spokesman at the time is quoted as saying Plame was "unlikely" to take further trips overseas, though.)

    [SNIP]

    Source http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11179719/site/newsweek/

    I guess the judge is covering for her to.