Voting Republican

[mosher]

Yes, I think history will show that this president did more to tarnish our image than any other before him. The sad news is we have him for another 2 years. The only thing preventing him from attacking another country is the fact that we don’t have enough troops.

My guess is IF he had a few hundred thousand more soldiers, he would have attacked Syria, Iran and North Korea. Not that any of these countries are not worthy of being attacked, but whatever happened to diplomacy.

Actually we have more than enough troops to invade North Korea and Iran at the same time. We are no where near the stress point for military readiness. We are actually under less military usage right now than under certain periods of the Clinton Administration. I hope you are using hyperbole because it is not based in fact.

 

[nydas]

So, they are bad guys that are lucky to be alive. I really have not the time nor the patience to hear their grievances unless they are valid.

And how do you know hes a bad guy? How do you know he did anything wrong? I can gurantee you we have POW that are innocent. And so what if they are bad guys? Does that give us the right to torture them? We are bound by the geneva convention. Just because our enemys dont follow it, dosent mean we should stoop to thier level.

Actually the president has not lied. Rather, it turned out that the intelligence was false concerning certain aspects of Iraq. It is only a lie if it is malicious. Acting rightly based on the evidence presented is not a lie. We need not redefine words to make a point.

He trusted RUSSIAN intelligence. What kind of president does that? He used another countrys intelligence and used it to invade an innocent country. Don’t you think a president should have tried a wee bit harder to make sure the intelligence was ACCURATE?

 

[mary_bobo]

Nydas, please quit saying that President Clinton lied about sex. He lied to a grand jury and around here that is considered a crime.
At least get your facts straight before you make accusations you cannot back up. Have a good day.

 

[nydas]

Actually we have more than enough troops to invade North Korea and Iran at the same time. We are no where near the stress point for military readiness. We are actually under less military usage right now than under certain periods of the Clinton Administration. I hope you are using hyperbole because it is not based in fact.

We would need a lot more forces in attacking Iran and N korea since they have a somewhat decent standing Army. And as many soldiers as there is in our military, very few of them are combat oriented. So we really dont have enough forces.

 

[mary_bobo]

Ya. Sorry about that. I was in a hurry and didnt notice. I went back and fixed it also.

And you know whats better then keeping em in stasis? Using them to find cures for disese!

Proof?

You know, i think killing innocent Iraqi civillians, and tearing apart there country, ranks a little higher on the list of moral ramifications then gay marriage, but thats just me.

You may have, but i didn’t. And i seem to recall quite the controversy over recounts back in 00’ causing me to question the legality over bush’s presidency.

You best go back and check the facts of the 2000 election. I was there and there is no reason to question the legality of the election.

 

[mary_bobo]

I would have to say “yes” there is, even if it hasn’t been as dramtic as we would like.

Two new Supreme Court Justices that are more likely to protect life than any the Democrats would have put forward.

Many more pro-life justices in lower courts.

Numerous states with parental notification laws.

The partial birth abortion ban. Being challenged, yes, but it would have been vetoed outright by a certain Democrat who ran for President or not even made it that far.

Reinstatement of the Mexico City policy limiting foreign aid to be used for abortions and coercive family planning practices.

Numerous states with “Woman’s Right to Know” laws.

The fight is far from over and it seems we take one step back for every two steps forward but I believe we are making progress.

Corki, thanks for posting this. But I am sadly afraid you are preaching to the choir. Too many folks on this forum have found ways in the minds to justify abortion. They KNOW it is wrong, but somehow they cannot fit it into their political agenda. And I don’t think some of the posters have any idea how the three branches of government work independently or together. Would that the President could wave a magic wand and make abortion go away.

 

[Rach620]

A friend recently presented this argument to me when discussing voting and the moral issues that we face today, especially abortion: “The Republican party is the party that is pro-life. But we have had a Republican president for 6 years now, and the Republicans have held the House for many years as well, and STILL nothing definitive has been done to bring an end to abortion. We vote Republican (for some it is for many issues) largely to combat abortion. But is anything actually being done by our Republican politicians to put an end to abortion? Certainly the opportunity is there…”

That was the gist of the statement. Any thoughts on this?

Also, I think it’s important to remember that whenever we vote, we are working with in a two-party system. As counter-cultural as Catholics can be, to change the system we must work within it.

As marvelous as it would be to always have a 100% pro-life candidate out there to vote for, that’s not going to happen. I agree with other posters on this thread, that writing in a candidate who has no chance of winning is a wasted vote. Even voting for the slightly more pro-life candidate is better than virtually giving your vote to the opponent by supporting someone who has no chance. Though some of us would rather Constitution Party leadership, that’s just not the USA we live in. As it is, we are much better off with a Republican in office than a Democrat. (This could change for the 2008 Presidential election, though… Not sure what to do if the Republican candidate is ‘moderate’ on life issues, like Giuliani.)

It’s important to remember the party platform and the privileges given to the majority party in the House and Senate. The majority controls what legislation is passed through committees and therefore reaches the floor of Congress for debate. And–more importantly–the Senate confirms presidential appointments to the Supreme Court. You can be sure Roberts and Alito would have had a lot more trouble making it to the Court if the Senate were controlled by Dems. And they wouldn’t have gotten there in the first place if Bush hadn’t been around to nominate them.

Besides, it is also important to remember that it’s not going to be the president alone or a particular senator who ends abortion in this country. That’s the job of the Supreme Court. What Bush has done for the pro-life movement is nominate justices to the Court who, though they may not (at least for now) directly overturn Roe v Wade/Planned Parenthood v Casey, they will chip away at it.

A lot of people don’t recognize the complexity of the judicial system in America–judges don’t just bring up any old issue they feel like! Roberts can’t wake up one morning and say, “Oh, I feel like sticking it to Harry Blackmun today, how about overturning Roe!” The precedent has been set; cases now have to be brought before the Court so that it can interpret that established case law, and perhaps revisit it.

Just so you are aware… some important issues recently/this term are parental notification laws/waiting periods for minors and the federal partial birth abortion ban (which, btw, was signed into law by President Bush). The pro-life resolutions to these issues will help to build a culture of life in America where the overturning of Roe might not seem so far-fetched as it does today.

Saying that “STILL nothing definitive has been done to bring an end to abortion” is a bit of an exaggeration. Change in this area will really only come gradually and with much effort.

 

[mosher]

We would need a lot more forces in attacking Iran and N korea since they have a somewhat decent standing Army. And as many soldiers as there is in our military, very few of them are combat oriented. So we really dont have enough forces.

My ex was also recently stationed in South Korea so I have some direct knowledge of the status over there. Frankly, an army fights on their stomach. North Korea has no food. The only trouble we would have in that country is if China and Russia come in again to help them as they did in the first Korean War.

The Iranian army was considered a comparable power to the Iraqi military. We all know how had that was. Further, if that were necessary I would be the first as the OSO office to sign back up to lead men into battle.

And how do you know hes a bad guy? How do you know he did anything wrong? I can gurantee you we have POW that are innocent. And so what if they are bad guys? Does that give us the right to torture them? We are bound by the geneva convention. Just because our enemys dont follow it, dosent mean we should stoop to thier level.

First of all there has been no torture except by the rogue unit in Abu Griab. Every other facility has received clean bills of health.

Second, enemy combatants do not have legal rights in American or international law. You determine their innocence as you interrogate them. See, in a military action people are not afforded innocence until guilt is proved but rather it is based in Roman law which says a person is guilty and innocence must be proved. Let us not confuse civil law with military action.

The fact is that many people have been released from these prisons however according to both national and international law and historical precedent we have the right to hold them until the end of the war without any other information except that we caught them on the battlefield. They are not POWs because they violated international law and were not in an identifiable uniform but rather engaged while in civilian garb. Under the Geneva Convention they lose all rights as a POW and become an Enemy Combatant with no rights. You should know this. Back when I was doing the military thing we had to commit the Geneva Conventions to memory.

He trusted RUSSIAN intelligence. What kind of president does that? He used another countrys intelligence and used it to invade an innocent country. Don’t you think a president should have tried a wee bit harder to make sure the intelligence was ACCURATE?

No, we used Russian, French, Israeli, British and our own Intelligence among others to collaborate the information. All agreed. Also, remember that the British and Israeli Intelligence communities are recognized as the best in the world. So, again, your information is not quite correct and it is clouding your perception of this action.

On a side note, it has now become public knowledge that Saddam had a Nuclear Weapons program and was about a year away from having a viable bomb. I guess even the least reliable intelligence has turned out to be true.

 

[wcknight]

IF we have enough troops (say to invade another country), then why have many of the troops been going through Iraq for 2, 3 or more tours of duty. Also, these troops are NOT Army, Navy, or Marine regulars, many are national guardsmen, most of whom did not sign up for combat overseas. Normally the function of National Guardsmen is security on home soil, not overseas duty.

I don’t buy your premise that democracy would not have taken place without the American experiment. I think the French Revolution would have taken place regardless (and I’m not sure but may have taken place before it) and I also think other democracies would have emerged regardless of an American democracy as well. I see no evidence that points to America as the catalyst or inspiration for other nations to become republics or democracies. My question is did the revolutionaries
cause thousands of casualties needlessly with a violent war ? Could it have been accomplished peaceably ?

The geneva convention guarantees the rights of all combatants and it was the Bush administrations desire to subvert those as well. Senator McKain and a bunch of generals prevent that and rightly so. Torture is not permissible as a legitimate form of interrogation, and especially in a country where INNOCENCE is presumed first. it should not be used as a matter of policy.

It has already been shown that some of the prisoners were indeed innocent so you can not claim that all were terrorists or enemys at all. When we stoop to act as low as the enemy, the world sees us as no better than they are. Even one Abu Grieb incident is one too many, and what about other atrocities such as the family that was murdered and girl that was raped and burned alive.

You can not chalk that up to boys will be boys, and the world holds this country and all Amerians accountable, rightly or wrongly. The whole Iraq mess is as much a stain on this country as VietNam ever was. The time to get out is long passed, and every day we stay there only makes the body count go up, both for Iraqis and Americans. IF Vietnam taught us anything, it was that you can not win a war when the people there are against you.

 

[nydas]

The Brits, our closest ally, seem to think that Bush is more of a threat then Kim Jong ill and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad(Iranian president).

guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,1938434,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=12

I think i get it now. I understand the Republicans stratagy! There gonna make the US safer by making every country in the world hate us. Its BRILLIANT!

 

[aimee]

The Brits, our closest ally, seem to think that Bush is more of a threat then Kim Jong ill and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad(Iranian president).

guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,1938434,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=12

I think i get it now. I understand the Republicans stratagy! There gonna make the US safer by making every country in the world hate us. Its BRILLIANT!

Are you really in the US Army and an atheist

 

[Al_Masetti]

On a side note, it has now become public knowledge that Saddam had a Nuclear Weapons program and was about a year away from having a viable bomb. I guess even the least reliable intelligence has turned out to be true.

STRONGLY recommend that folks buy “Spying on the Bomb” by Jeffrey Richelson.

It includes a tremendous amount of detail on how Saddam financed and concealed his nuclear weapons program.

For months and years, folks have denied that Saddam was close to having the bomb. Now, all of a sudden, it’s true.

So, read the book.

 

[nydas]

Are you really in the US Army and an atheist

I guess that whole “no atheist in a foxole” thing dosent apply to me. But then again, there arent really any foxholes here in Iraq so…

 

[Paganus]

Corki, thanks for posting this. But I am sadly afraid you are preaching to the choir. Too many folks on this forum have found ways in the minds to justify abortion. They KNOW it is wrong, but somehow they cannot fit it into their political agenda. And I don’t think some of the posters have any idea how the three branches of government work independently or together. Would that the President could wave a magic wand and make abortion go away.

Exactly - the next time we all get to vote for a US Supreme Court justice, vote for one who is Pro-Life.

Otherwise, it’s just an issue for rich Yalies to pretend to support when they want the power to select the new china pattern for the White House.

“I regret my votes for W.”:crying:

 

[nydas]

Heres a nice little article about why you shouldnt vote for the republicans in the next election:

eightandfive.com/2006/11/02/stay-on-target/

 

[nydas]

Forget no-fly lists. If Uncle Sam gets its way, beginning on Jan. 14,
2007, we’ll all be on no-fly lists, unless the government gives us
permission to leave-or re-enter-the United States.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (HSA) has proposed that all
airlines, cruise lines-even fishing boats-be required to obtain
clearance for each passenger they propose taking into or out of the
United States.

It doesn’t matter if you have a U.S. Passport - a “travel document”
that now, absent a court order to the contrary, gives you a virtually
unqualified right to enter or leave the United States, any time you
want. When the DHS system comes into effect next January, if the
agency says “no” to a clearance request, or doesn’t answer the
request at all, you won’t be permitted to enter-or leave-the United
States.

Consider what might happen if you’re a U.S. passport holder on
assignment in a country like Saudi Arabia. Your visa is about to
expire, so you board your flight back to the United States. But wait!
You can’t get on, because you don’t have permission from the HSA.
Saudi immigration officials are on hand to escort you to a squalid
detention center, where you and others who are now effectively
“stateless persons” are detained, potentially indefinitely, until
their immigration status is sorted out.

Why might the HSA deny you permission to leave-or enter-the United
States? No one knows, because the entire clearance procedure would be
an administrative determination made secretly, with no right of
appeal. Naturally, the decision would be made without a warrant,
without probable cause and without even any particular degree of
suspicion. Basically, if the HSA decides it doesn’t like you, you’re
a prisoner - either outside, or inside, the United States, whether or
not you hold a U.S. passport.

The U.S. Supreme Court has long recognized there is a constitutional
right to travel internationally. Indeed, it has declared that the
right to travel is “a virtually unconditional personal right.” The
United States has also signed treaties guaranteeing “freedom of
travel.” So if these regulations do go into effect, you can expect a
lengthy court battle, both nationally and internationally.

Think this can’t happen? Think again. It’s ALREADY happening. Earlier
this year, HSA forbade airlines from transporting an 18-year-old a
native-born U.S. citizen, back to the United States. The prohibition
lasted nearly six months until it was finally lifted a few weeks ago.
Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union are two countries in recent history
that didn’t allow their citizens to travel abroad without permission.
If these regulations go into effect, you can add the United States to
this list.

For more information on this proposed regulation, see http://
hasbrouck.org/IDP/IDP-APIS-comments.pdf.

Hmmm. I wonder what gave me the idea that the republicans were stripping us of our freedoms…

 

[mjdonnelly]

Lesser of 2 evils means voting Rep. over Dem. in my book. At least most of the time. On occasion there is a Dem who is better, but I vote for that person on a line other than the democratic line.

 

[aimee]

Exactly - the next time we all get to vote for a US Supreme Court justice, vote for one who is Pro-Life.

Otherwise, it’s just an issue for rich Yalies to pretend to support when they want the power to select the new china pattern for the White House.

“I regret my votes for W.”:crying:

Perhaps Lew Rockwell would suit you

 

[mary_bobo]

Exactly - the next time we all get to vote for a US Supreme Court justice, vote for one who is Pro-Life.

Otherwise, it’s just an issue for rich Yalies to pretend to support when they want the power to select the new china pattern for the White House.

“I regret my votes for W.”:crying:

I think there are two SC justices who are waiting for a Dem Senate to retire. The president will never get another pro-life justice past that group. But maybe you don’t care about that.

 

[Al_Masetti]

The Democrats (and some RINOs) in the Senate already have a whole slew of lower court judges’ appointments bottled up.