Friends don't let Friends vote Republican

[Cipherous]

got this from another forum


Things you have to believe to be a Republican today:

Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush's daddy made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business with him and a bad guy when Bush needed a "we can't find Bin Laden" diversion.

Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is communist, but trade
with China and Vietnam is vital to a spirit of international harmony.

The United States should get out of the United Nations, and our highest
national priority is conducting an invasion of Iraq based on bad intelligence.

A woman can't be trusted with decisions about her own body, but
multi-national corporations can make decisions affecting all mankind
without regulation.

Jesus loves you, and shares your hatred of homosexuals and Hillary
Clinton.

The best way to improve military morale is to praise the troops in
speeches while slashing veterans' benefits and combat pay.

If condoms are kept out of schools, adolescents won't have sex.

A good way to fight terrorism is to belittle our long-time allies, then
demand their cooperation and money.

Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy. Providing health
care to all Americans is socialism.

HMOs and insurance companies have the best interests of the public at
heart.

Global warming and tobacco's link to cancer are junk science, but
creationism should be taught in schools.

A president lying about an extramarital affair is a impeachable
offense. A president lying to enlist support for a war in which
thousands die is solid defense policy.

Government should limit itself to the powers named in the Constitution,
which include banning gay marriages and censoring the Internet.

The public has a right to know about Hillary's cattle trades, but
George Bush's driving record is none of our business.

Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you're a
conservative radio host. Then it's an illness, and you need our prayers
for your recovery.

You support states' rights, which means Attorney General John
Ashcroft can tell states what local voter initiatives they have the right
to adopt.

What Bill Clinton did in the 1960s is of vital national interest, but
what Bush did in the '80s is irrelevant.



Feel free to pass this on. If you don't send it to at least 10 other
people, we're likely to be
stuck with Bush for 4 more years.

Friends don't let friends vote Republican

[mr. x]

one more, clinton was a draft dodger

bush "guarded the nation"

[rakovlam]

Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is communist, but trade
with China and Vietnam is vital to a spirit of international harmony.

That should get a positive response here.

Like all chain mail, I'm gonna toss this in a fire, seeing that I'll be "cursed" with 4 more years of GW. Oh well. *shrug*

[nola]

This is awesome plus mr. x's addition!!!!! I posted on my imc.

[Mr.Lum]

Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is communist, but trade
with China and Vietnam is vital to a spirit of international harmony.

We ought trade with Cuba and establish normal relations. Screw the Cubans in south Florida.

[Emperor_Mike]

I honestly don't see why the Cuban embargo is still in effect. Do they dislike Castro THAT much? Someone enlighten me. I don't feel like Googling right now. :biggrin:

And in all honesty, not all Republicans are the same. You have moderates and extremists. Unfortunately, at this juncture it seems that all Republicans are extremists in the eyes of Democrats and certain Independents.

[achtungbaby]

And in all honesty, not all Republicans are the same. You have moderates and extremists. Unfortunately, at this juncture it seems that all Republicans are extremists in the eyes of Democrats and certain Independents.
It's a two-way street. Frankly, I get annoyed by anyone who's so deeply entrenched in their viewpoint that they refuse to consider even the remote possibility...that they don't know what the fuck they're talking about :wink:

This election ain't gonna be won by converting the far right. As you mentioned, there are a ton of liberal/moderate Republicans who are friggen *ripe* for conversion. Many of them now think the war was indeed wrong but still havent come full circle in subseqently denouncing the President.

[mr. x]

not sure if this is menitoned but

lying about sex = bad

lying about war = .....

[Kuchana]

And in all honesty, not all Republicans are the same. You have moderates and extremists. Unfortunately, at this juncture it seems that all Republicans are extremists in the eyes of Democrats and certain Independents.

I agree. So there may be some who do not agree with the reasons that Bush gave for the war but that doesn't mean that we should give it up altogether. Who says that some Republicans have to denounce the president for some of his actions? I'm still willing to stick with him anyday over Kerry.

[Arex]

I agree. So there may be some who do not agree with the reasons that Bush gave for the war but that doesn't mean that we should give it up altogether.
Whether you think El Presidente misled us into war or not, I think most people, including Kerry, understand that we're kind of stuck there now. The question before us now is whether we trust the president that launched a premature strike, based on evidence that was suspect to begin with, to get us safely out of the mess.

Honestly, if the administration would just own up to the fact that they royally fucked up both intelligence-wise and strategically, I might be more inclined to cut them some slack. But with Bush constantly changing the stated purpose of the war effort, and Cheney sticking by his guns insisting that there was good intell, they've both lost all credibility.

RX

[Emperor_Mike]

It's a two-way street. Frankly, I get annoyed by anyone who's so deeply entrenched in their viewpoint that they refuse to consider even the remote possibility...that they don't know what the fuck they're talking about :wink:

This election ain't gonna be won by converting the far right. As you mentioned, there are a ton of liberal/moderate Republicans who are friggen *ripe* for conversion. Many of them now think the war was indeed wrong but still havent come full circle in subseqently denouncing the President.

Yes, the zealots allow idealogy to blind their common sense. It's a shame really. Instead of trying to ask Republicans why they're voting for George W. Bush, perhaps one ought to be presenting the question of how has American truly benefited from four years of his leadership and let them come to their own conclusion. Ideally, people shouldn't go to the polls because they want to vote for the candidate they like most or because they feel that they're compelled to do so due to party affiliation. They should be casting their ballots for the individual who appears to be best suited to take up the heavy burden that is the Presidency.

I agree. So there may be some who do not agree with the reasons that Bush gave for the war but that doesn't mean that we should give it up altogether. Who says that some Republicans have to denounce the president for some of his actions? I'm still willing to stick with him anyday over Kerry.

The reason for going to war is a major thing, of course. For a nation to send its young men and women to die on some foreign battlefield requires a good amount of justification. George failed miserably in providing a plausible casus belli and many Americans have good reason to believe that no US soldier should have set foot in Iraq because, crudely put, the "returns in investment" simply aren't materialising.

There shouldn't be any talk of abandoning Iraq and I'm glad that the Democrats at least have that point down pat. Pulling out of Iraq will be an even more disastrous decision than the one which set this whole exercise into motion.

[Kuchana]

Whether you think El Presidente misled us into war or not, I think most people, including Kerry, understand that we're kind of stuck there now. The question before us now is whether we trust the president that launched a premature strike, based on evidence that was suspect to begin with, to get us safely out of the mess.

Honestly, if the administration would just own up to the fact that they royally fucked up both intelligence-wise and strategically, I might be more inclined to cut them some slack. But with Bush constantly changing the stated purpose of the war effort, and Cheney sticking by his guns insisting that there was good intell, they've both lost all credibility.

RX

If you've noticed by the polls if polls count for anything, most people trust Bush's ability to deal with terrorism than Kerry. That speaks volumes.

Who are we to judge what is good or bad intel? Of course we messed up. To put the blame on Bush's administration entirely when there were other administrations before him that should have been held accountable as well for the faulty intel is telling.

[Emperor_Mike]

If you've noticed by the polls if polls count for anything, most people trust Bush's ability to deal with terrorism than Kerry. That speaks volumes.

Who are we to judge what is good or bad intel? Of course we messed up. To put the blame on Bush's administration entirely when there were other administrations before him that should have been held accountable as well for the faulty intel is telling.

Having bad intelligence and using said intelligence to start a war is quite different. At the very least, someone should have double checked. There's no excuse for sloppy work which finishes with people dying. I'm just saying.

As far as dealing with terrorism is concerned, I'm not sure what exactly it is George has done which gives Americans so much faith in his abilities.

[Kuchana]

The reason for going to war is a major thing, of course. For a nation to send its young men and women to die on some foreign battlefield requires a good amount of justification. George failed miserably in providing a plausible casus belli and many Americans have good reason to believe that no US soldier should have set foot in Iraq because, crudely put, the "returns in investment" simply aren't materialising.

While the reasons may not have been justifiable for going to war in the first place, the point is we're there and stay we must, no matter what the cost to bring stability and democracy, even for their own version of democracy of what that may be. Let the people be able to think for themselves and vote accordingly and live their lives unlike before. It may seem that these are dismal times and the effort not worthwhile but what people are doing is to pave the way for the future of peace and freedom. So I'm idealistic but that's what I hope will happen.

Having bad intelligence and using said intelligence to start a war is quite different. At the very least, someone should have double checked. There's no excuse for sloppy work which finishes with people dying. I'm just saying.

As far as dealing with terrorism is concerned, I'm not sure what exactly it is George has done which gives Americans so much faith in his abilities.

Of course more care should have been undertaken to check for the validity of our intelligence and more shame on us and the government for not doing so.

Ok so I don't want this to be misconstrued the wrong way but I like how Bush has been assertive in his actions, which some may see as overly aggressive. I also like the fact that he didn't back down like some presidents in the past would have.

[Emperor_Mike]

While the reasons may not have been justifiable for going to war in the first place, the point is we're there and stay we must, no matter what the cost to bring stability and democracy, even for their own version of democracy of what that may be. Let the people be able to think for themselves and vote accordingly and live their lives unlike before. It may seem that these are dismal times and the effort not worthwhile but what people are doing is to pave the way for the future of peace and freedom. So I'm idealistic but that's what I hope will happen.

Oh, I'm not disagreeing with your assessment that the United States cannot pull out now. I've said before that doing so will be disastrous in many ways. Going into it was mistake of enormous proportions, but leaving now will probably result in the United States getting a nip in the behind later on by resurgent terrorist organisations.



Of course more care should have been undertaken to check for the validity of our intelligence and more shame on us and the government for not doing so.

Ok so I don't want this to be misconstrued the wrong way but I like how Bush has been assertive in his actions, which some may see as overly aggressive. I also like the fact that he didn't back down like some presidents in the past would have.

Open aggression in politics has always been the hallmark of a failed statesman, though not necessarily a failed politician. In George's case I think he's managed to give a new meaning to incompetent in both areas. Anyone can be assertive. Had Bush been assertive and successful I'd be more willing to look past the means by which he arrived at his objective(s). Since his performance was less than promising, I personally don't think the rounds he put the country and its armed forces through in Iraq was worth the time, trouble, or lives.

[Kuchana]

Open aggression in politics has always been the hallmark of a failed statesman, though not necessarily a failed politician. In George's case I think he's managed to give a new meaning to incompetent in both areas. Anyone can be assertive. Had Bush been assertive and successful I'd be more willing to look past the means by which he arrived at his objective(s). Since his performance was less than promising, I personally don't think the rounds he put the country and its armed forces through in Iraq was worth the time, trouble, or lives.

I know this is going somewhat off tangent from Bush but was toppling Saddam from power worth the time, trouble, or lives? I think it was considering the thousands of people he murdered ruthlessly while in power and many more that were tortured or through other methods. It makes me very angry and guilty whenever I think about the past and when we did nothing but stand by and let him murder whoever at will. If this is worth it to make the sacrifice then so be it. We need to amend for the wrongs that were committed.

[Emperor_Mike]

I know this is going somewhat off tangent from Bush but was toppling Saddam from power worth the time, trouble, or lives? I think it was considering the thousands of people he murdered ruthlessly while in power and many more that were tortured or through other methods. It makes me very angry and guilty whenever I think about the past and when we did nothing but stand by and let him murder whoever at will. If this is worth it to make the sacrifice then so be it. We need to amend for the wrongs that were committed.

In terms of national interest, no. The exercise was not worth the time, effort or lives. The amount the United States has sunk into the war is not bringing about any tangible benefits for the country. If Washington is to adopt a "Crusader for the Oppressed" mentality, then I suggest that the White House better get cracking in areas like the Sudan, North Korea, and countless other states.

Delivering the downtrodden from their masters is an old and tired justification for reaching out beyond your national borders to have a grab at another country's land and resources. It simply doesn't work. You may believe it to be the case and I sincerely hope that nations like the United States will eventually find it within themselves to intervene without any ulterior motives, but sadly I'm far too much of a realist to dwell too long on this impossible dream.

[Kuchana]

In terms of national interest, no. The exercise was not worth the time, effort or lives. The amount the United States has sunk into the war is not bringing about any tangible benefits for the country. If Washington is to adopt a "Crusader for the Oppressed" mentality, then I suggest that the White House better get cracking in areas like the Sudan, North Korea, and countless other states.

Delivering the downtrodden from their masters is an old and tired justification for reaching out beyond your national borders to have a grab at another country's land and resources. It simply doesn't work. You may believe it to be the case and I sincerely hope that nations like the United States will eventually find it within themselves to intervene without any ulterior motives, but sadly I'm far too much of a realist to dwell too long on this impossible dream.

Isn't it too soon to ask if the war is bringing tangible benefits for the country nor for the world in general? Progress needs to be made and it shall be through time and effort.

It's not the responsibility of the United States to free people from oppression. That should be left up the U.N. who at the moment are incompetent to handle such a responsibility. It seems then that the responisibility to "police" the world has fallen upon the shoulders of the U.S. then.

While my reasoning may be a tired justification to you for this war and for freeing people from oppression, I continuously stick to my convictions, despite the obstacles that may be in its path. It may seem like an impossible dream, considering when you question the motives of countries, not only the U.S. but others, when it comes to assisting others. But there is still hope that exists to do good in this world.

[deez nuts]

i find the political atmosphere on yw to be the exact opposite of the politcal atmosphere at work and amongst my friends. most, if not all, my friends and co-workers are voting bush. i think me and like one other are teeter tottering.

it's quite interesting.

[kimpossible]

Though I do tend to end up voting for Democrats it wouldn't be accurate for me to say I'm a Democrat. I don't feel the Democratic party is superior and all Republicans are facist, irrational Nazis. I think overall both parties are interested in keeping the status quo with rich corporate white guys at the top. Main problem I have with the current Republican party is that they are too into restricting personal civil liberties and not concentrating enough of domestic issues.

Bush is also utterly fucking stupid. Not because he's a Republican but because he's utterly fucking stupid. So stupid I'm voting for Kerry and I don't even really like Kerry.

[Arex]

If you've noticed by the polls if polls count for anything, most people trust Bush's ability to deal with terrorism than Kerry. That speaks volumes.
The only thing that polls do these days is make me concerned about the direction our country and people are headed if these people really feel that George has done even a mediocre job of handling terrorism. But maybe that's just because I view the invasion of Iraq as the single worst possible way a president could address the threat of terrorism. If you're going to insist on invading a country in the name of fighting terrorism, at least make sure there's some actual, supportable justification for doing so. Was there a shred of evidence indicating that Iraq was an imminent threat? If not, then why not slow the fuck down, at least so as to appease our allies so we don't have to face it all alone. Now, because of our unjust and illegal (from the perspectives of many in the Middle East) occupation of Iraq, we've only given terrorists more fodder.

Who are we to judge what is good or bad intel? Of course we messed up. To put the blame on Bush's administration entirely when there were other administrations before him that should have been held accountable as well for the faulty intel is telling.
Well, we didn't find WMDs, so I'm guessing this is probably a case of bad intel (but I'm no CIA operative, so what do I know.=P). What's worse is that some of the information we had (e.g., Iraq's purported attempts to buy uranium from Niger) was sketchy to begin with. The administration knew this was the case but decided to wave it up in the air before our country and the world as a justification for the war. Ultimately, the only reason I hold Bush and his administration accountable is because he's the one who sent us to war.

While the reasons may not have been justifiable for going to war in the first place, the point is we're there and stay we must, no matter what the cost to bring stability and democracy, even for their own version of democracy of what that may be...

Of course more care should have been undertaken to check for the validity of our intelligence and more shame on us and the government for not doing so.
What I will never understand is why, if one agrees that the whole reason we're even over in Iraq is because the administration fucked up--and that's a pretty huge fuck up, IMHO--why give them another chance? As Bush once said so eloquently:
"There's an old saying in Tennessee—I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee—that says, fool me once, shame on.......(long pause accompanied by trademark vacant, confused stare) ........shame on you. (long pause)................ Fool me.......(long pause).......you can't get fooled again."
The presidency is not a good place for errors of this magnitude. "Oops! No WMDs found in Iraq, 1000 troops lost, insurgents running around beheading civilian contractors, hatred of the U.S. at an all time high, damaged relations with our allies--I promise to do better next time around." BUT, like I've said before, if you really think Bush has led the country well for the past four years and if you think he'll do a better job leading us out of the mess, then he deserves your vote.

Ok so I don't want this to be misconstrued the wrong way but I like how Bush has been assertive in his actions, which some may see as overly aggressive. I also like the fact that he didn't back down like some presidents in the past would have.
Being assertive is one thing. Being reckless is quite another. I think an extremely good case can be made that Bush acted recklessly here. His after the fact justification for the war, Iraqi democracy, doesn't change the fact that this war should never have taken place to begin with. At least not for the reasons the administration provided. That there is dangerous.

RX

[achtungbaby]

Who are we to judge what is good or bad intel? Of course we messed up. To put the blame on Bush's administration entirely when there were other administrations before him that should have been held accountable as well for the faulty intel is telling.
Let's just cut to the chase: what evidence out there suggests that our current administration did not manufacture a threat to incite the country into war? Exactly what intelligence did the administration do an "awww shucks" misinterpretation -- a golly gee mistake...?

There's much more substantive evidence that this was a dirty war than there ever was about WMD.

It seems then that the responisibility to "police" the world has fallen upon the shoulders of the U.S. then.
Great! When are we saddling up to invade North Korea? Not only are the people being brutalized and starved to death, but the they've almost undoubtedly amassed at least the capability to manufacture WMD. Will we ever invade there? Helllll no. Why?

What do the North Koreans have to offer?

While my reasoning may be a tired justification to you for this war and for freeing people from oppression, I continuously stick to my convictions, despite the obstacles that may be in its path.
I'm all about convictions and sticking to your guns -- but that's only after yov've had the courage to thoroughly test the tenets of your belief using the weight of evidence against them.

It may seem like an impossible dream, considering when you question the motives of countries, not only the U.S. but others, when it comes to assisting others. But there is still hope that exists to do good in this world.
This, I think, is probably one of the most compelling reasons why Bush hasn't gone down in flames already for rampant corruption.

Fair enough. The Matrix wasn't easy for Neo to swallow either:P

Oh, and to tag team on Alex's point about recklessness: precedence is important on the international stage. What's stopping other nations from preemptively striking their enemies in the name of self-defense?