Why vote Republican?

[John317]

...You don't want a Marxist state....

I am sure you do not, either. Right?

[jasd]

I am not speaking of 'the people' - I am speaking of those who, in no uncertain terms, let the POTUS know - what he should do for both the good of the Nation and his very self.

It is said that Kennedy spoke at Columbia U lest than a fortnight before traveling to Dallas. Paraphrasing: There is a small group of men who have disenfreanchised the citizens of this Nation and rule in their stead. I pledge that I will expose them before I leave office.

His father had great antipathy towards the 'gnomes of Zurich'; that is, the International Banker. One suspects that he passed on to his sons that same antipathy.

However, it may have been his chutzpah to have begun issuing silver-backed currencie$ - that got him killed.

[jasd]

>>You don't want a Marxist state, and yet, you want the goverment to regulate a woman's body just so she don't make the mistake of aborting her child.<<

The security and welfare of a society is dependent, largely (bearing in mind those women who fight alongside our men), upon the character of its men – upon whom the ultimate sacrifice lies.

Suffice it to say that the character of America’s men is shaped and influenced by the character of society’s cultural values, its mores – of which, is the matter of abortion.

Until this present ‘postmodern’ times, if you will, men, when questioned if they would willingly give up their place in a lifeboat to a woman, answered in the affirmative.

That is no longer the case. Our young men, when now polled on that question, laugh at the very thought.

I somewhat understand, as I question how it is that we may instill honour in our young men re women – when so large a class of them advocate killing those inconvenient children gestating in their wombs.

We are becoming nihilistic. Is that good? Is that the price we must pay so that a woman might not have to be bothered by chastity, with ‘rhythm’, or prophylactics?

Taking away a woman’s right to choose? Before Roe v Wade, that ‘right’ did not exist in America. It is axiomatic that what the king giveth, the king taketh. Disabuse me should I err, but the Magna Carta was rescinded more than 30 times. [/extemporaneously]

Acknowledged: then again, there may be tandem reasons contributing to the seeming dissolution of our society – such as the harsh rhetoric from the left

[John317]

Quote:

I am tired of America getting involved in the world's problems. Russia's response to America's saber rattling has been to rattle thier own sabres, to which, america is now looking for deplomacy.....I prefer that America get out of local wars and use a more thoughtful diplomatic approach...

We're doing some more stupid stuff in confronting Russia over Georgia's shoot first ask questions later policy....Now we have another problem, or rather a resurgance of an old problem...Russia...[Which I have NEVER trusted since Bush looked into Puttin's eyes and said that Russia is our friend].

Whether you realize it or not, or like it or not, the fact is that the US is the superpower of the world and must take a position on those kinds of issues. We cannot go back to pre-WW2 days, particularly as regards countries like Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, etc.

Even your candidate Obama realizes this, and is not saying the US should not get involved. Therefore, your argument that is meant to defend or protect Obama does not protect him at all, because Obama does not even agree with you.

He simply made a big mistake; but that is what people do when they are in over their head and do not have any more experience than Obama has.

If you read Russian history (and I'm not saying you have not), you will conclude that we eventually would have to deal with differences with Russia over these kinds of issues anyway, at some point. Why? Because of Russia's past in relation to its neighbors, and because we know why Russia is doing what it's doing. Actually, Russia wants to be a part of Nato and believes that invading Georgia is one way to show what can happen if Nato does not allow Russia to join it.

By the way, did you know where Stalin was from?

[Bravus]

So the bottom line is, Republicans are fine with government control of people's lives, just in different areas to Democrats.

[John317]

Not sure what you mean, Bravus. Could you explain a little or give some examples or maybe quote what I said that you are responding to?

My own view is that government governs best which governs least. Most Americans just want the government to get out of the way so they can lead their lives as they choose.

Have you noticed that Obama has recently offered government help to Detroit automakers?

Quote:

After nearly eight years of getting little or no attention from the White House, it seems as though Detroit's automakers will be a major focus the 2008 Election. With the economy looking worse by the day, lawmakers in Washington have been kicking around the idea of a second economic stimulus package to get people shopping again, and Mowtown's lawmakers want in on the money. Michigan's two Democratic senators are attempting to use the prospect of such a bill to include federally-backed loans to help automakers and suppliers build new factories and engineer new models. The $4B would be used to offset the costs associated with the Treasury Department giving automakers $25B in loans at a discounted rate. Automakers have been against such a loan in the past, but with worsening conditions and tighter lending practices the idea is likely to sound much more exciting this time around.

Presumed Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama told the UAW in a letter that he supports the $4B in federal aid, stating that he would "provide real solutions necessary to help this industry compete and win in the global economy." Obama also promised tax breaks for consumers that purchase ultra fuel efficient vehicles and tax credits for automakers as well. Presumed Republican nominee John McCain opposes the idea of federally backed loans, but he does support tax breaks to those that purchase fuel efficient vehicles and a $300M in prize money for electric battery powered vehicles

[Bravus]

I was mainly responding to jasd (this forum is not great at delineating those kinds of links).

But the general point I was making is that:

A. Republicans claim to be for small government, but government actually grows bigger under Republicans. What they are actually for is making some areas smaller and others bigger.

B. Republicans claim to be about freedom from government interference in citizens' lives, but are very happy to allow wiretaps on citizens not charged with crimes, and to prohibit abortion. (I know you have a different position from most on the second one.) So what they actually want is not less government intervention, just different government intervention: unbridle the corporations and bridle the wombs.

[John317]

... 'wrong on the surge' is a Republican narrative, as is victory....

Not sure if it matters, but Obama agrees that the surge has been successful. He said recently that the surge in Iraq was "successful beyond his wildest dreams." Of course we do not know his dreams, but I take that to be an acknowledgement that the surge has been successful.

Source: http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/04/obama-surge-succeeded-beyond-wildest-dreams/

[John317]

I would like to know if the interest you have shown in American elections and politics is common in Australia.

I can't imagine many Americans taking a great interest in the elections in other countries outside of the US. My greatest interest in elections outside the US is in Mexican elections and somewhat also in English, German, and Russian, and a little in French. Most Americans, though, don't pay much attention to them.

I've read that there are teens in places like China who are always aware of what's going on in America-- the pop music, films, clothes, etc.

[CyberGuy]

OK. I think Obama/Binden agenda is closer to Osama Bin Ladins agenda than they are for what is right for America. That is for america to run from Iraq with its tail between its legs.

How is that for rephrasing. LOL

[CyberGuy]

Do you think Bravus that there will be less government intervention with the democrats. Already according to the Kiplinger letters the democrats in the house and senate are proposing massive government expansions and interference in business operations in this country. It is not a matter of more government. It is who will make it worse. Democrats or Republicans over the next four years.

[Neil D]

It is not a matter of more government. It is who will make it worse. Democrats or Republicans over the next four years.

Now, let me get this right...

When Bush took over office, America had a balanced budget, it's PR among countrys was good, relationships between other countrys was good, our dollar was fairly strong, and republicans were in a majority of the house and congress and we were getting rid of that massivvely wrong president, Clinton. Oh yes, we were NOT in a war either....During the last 8 years, our PR is in the tank, our budget...[WHAT budget???}, the dollar is weakening, we have 4000 service members who have died in a war that was unjust, and the american people were lied to...We have no FEMA as Katrina has shown us....Also, Bush has threaten our food supplys by encouraging the EPA to allow the sale of pesticides without fully testing them for residue. This has allowed the syndrome among bees as CCD or Colony Collapse disorder. This directely threatens your food supply...No bees, no fruit, no almonds and many nut crops..Up to a third of your food was/is threaten ...all for big Agrochemical and $$$$$$$$ .And it happened on his watch....

Bravus has shown that while you may have paid more in taxes, the rich got richer and the poor were less poor during a Democratic reign in congress and in the presidency...

Explain to me again what your premise is about who is making what worse?

[Bravus]

Cyberguy:

As I said, it's not a question so much of larger or smaller government as a whole, but of shifting the pieces around.

In terms of the issue of 'interference' or involvement in people's lives, the Democrats will roll back some of what Bush has done in terms of deregulating industry. People forget that the hallmark of the Bush administration in the months prior to September 11 was the rapid and dramatic rolling back of regulation on various industries including finance. The current housing and banking crisis is a direct result of that deregulation, and so is the tens or hundreds of billions of taxpayer money that will go into bailing out Fannie and Freddie. So I think it makes sense to get some *sensible, moderate* regulation back onto various industries to avoid that.

In terms of interference, the Republicans will leave business alone, but will reverse Roe v Wade and will seek to control people's lives in a variety of other ways, including increasing surveillance. Now, I am strongly anti-abortion myself, but the issue we're discussing here is government involvement in people's lives. And in terms of direct involvement the Republicans will do more than the Democrats.

In terms of the cost of government, the Democrats will protect and maybe even expand welfare and education programs, but Obama has already said he will cut back on military spending. On the other hand, the Republicans will cut back welfare and education and other government services, but McCain will stay in Iraq indefinitely and probably go into Iran. That will cost much more, so in terms of cost of government the Republicans are likely to be expensive. I know you disagree with cutting military spending, but again, the issue here is how much.

My point is simply that the Republicans claims to be about smaller government and less interference in people's lives are false: they have just as large a government and just as much interference, it's just in the areas they value... and the government of the Democrats is in the areas they value.

There's a pretty clear choice to be made when voting - and those who claim the parties are the same as one another are not paying attention.

[Bravus]

John317:

Not all Australians are as interested in American politics as I am, but many are. There are a few reasons for that, based on our cultural ties and America's dominance in the world at the moment, but the biggest one is that Australia has historically been a US ally and followed it to war. A large majority of Australians believed Australia should *not* have been in Iraq at all, but the Prime Minister at the time, John Howard, believed we should and committed us. It's for this reason in particular that Australians are very interested in what happens in America: if you guys do go into Iran we're likely to be dragged in.

That and the economic links. Our economy, which should still be booming, is slowing dramatically and heading for recession pretty much entirely based on the US subprime mess because our economies are so tightly linked.

[Dr. Shane]

Let me wade through some of that SPIN.

America had a balanced budget for one year and that is because revenues came in higher than expected due to the high-tech boom - which crashed and the surplus crashed along with it.

The Republican Congress was most responsible for cutting the budget, although Clinton did make major cuts in the CIA and the Defense Department.

That Federal Reserve has more control over the value of the dollar than does the President or Congress. The value of the dollar has fallen because the Federal Reserve has kept lowering interest rates to fuel the economy since the high-tech bubble popped and 9/11.

The war, well that deserves a thread on its own. I think anyone that believed Al Gore Jr. when he said he wouldn't have taken us into Iraq either gullible or simply not willing to admit the reality that existed at the time.

[Bravus]

Um, perhaps read again? Did I blame Bush for unbalancing the budget? Anywhere? Did I mention Gore, or America staying out of Iraq?

By all means call me on *my* spin, but not on the stuff that's all in your imagination!

[Neil D]

>>You don't want a Marxist state, and yet, you want the goverment to regulate a woman's body just so she don't make the mistake of aborting her child.<<

The security and welfare of a society is dependent, largely (bearing in mind those women who fight alongside our men), upon the character of its men – upon whom the ultimate sacrifice lies.

Suffice it to say that the character of America’s men is shaped and influenced by the character of society’s cultural values, its mores – of which, is the matter of abortion.

We fought a revolution for the ability to choose our destiny as a country and as individuals. We fought a civil war to include all men/women to be allowed to choose thier destiny. We fought a World War, not once but twice, to allow men and women to choose thier destiny and not be ruled by any country save the one we gave permission to represent us...

And now, you want men to rule over women, to tell the women that thier bodies are not thier own, that men rule over women and that when it comes to choosing to reproduce, women do not know, nor are knowledgeable about such things....

I think you gravely error in this matter....

If you do not give women the right to choose, then the goverment will tell women what is proper and what to expect when it comes to reproductive health. And thus, a marxist state is created from ancient ideologues where men desire to control women....and enslave them to be barefoot and pregnant.....

Women have the responsiblity and therefore the choice to decide when and where they shall reproduce. No women, by nature, desires to have the responsibility by herself. She craves the fellowship of her mate. It is God given. Therefore, let her have the responsiblity and she will choose wisely, given education and availibility of choices.

Yes, she will make a mistake. Men make mistakes in what they do as well. Let women learn from their mistakes...

[Neil D]

Let me wade through some of that SPIN.

[John317]

Makes sense. I kinda thought that. Personally I'm grateful to our cousins the Brits, the Australians and Canadians for all they've done to help in the war against terrorism.

[Bravus]

The Canadians were smart enough to stay out of Iraq, though.

[John317]

That is their right, of course. But the British are very intelligent, and they went into Iraq. I do not think it is a matter of intelligence, of course, and I am sure you don't, either. It is a matter of what is important to a nation, and that can be for a variety of reasons.

It is entirely likely, I believe, that history will judge George W. Bush as having done a good thing by going into Iraq. I know it will regarding our actions in Afghanistan.

I hope that history says we were right to do what we did Iraq, don't you? I mean, you don't hope Americans are judged to have been wrong, do you?

When I see what is going on there, I believe that we were right. If we hadn't gone there, Saddam would still be in power and be committing his crimes against his people. The other thugs would also be continuing their crimes. Did you read about what Saddam's sons were like and the kinds of things they did? They are making great strides in Iraq now. It's taken tremendous sacrifices to get where they are, sacrifices by both the Iraqis as well as the members of the coalition forces. We struggled in this country for freedom from 1775 to about 1789, and during that time we suffered and died by the thousands. Both changes were revolutions.

It would have been easy to walk away when the going got tough. A weaker people or a people who did not care about the Iraqis would have picked up their bags and run home. One of the main reason we did stay was because we knew it would go badly for those people who had been our friends if we left them alone.

[Bravus]

Quote:

I hope that history says we were right to do what we did Iraq, don't you? I mean, you don't hope Americans are judged to have been wrong, do you?

I don't hope either way: I know, beyond a doubt, that you were wrong. It's possible that some face can be salvaged, but you were absolutely wrong to start that war.

[Bravus]

So any argument about 'packing your bags and going home early' is completely moot - most of the problems you're staying there to 'fix' are problems you caused. If you'd never gone in there'd be no issue about when to get out.

Saddam was a bad guy, but there are dozens of bad guys around the world. Starting wars is a horrible way to change that.

[Woody]

Iraq.

Let us not forget WHO is really responsible.

Follow the money ..........

[John317]

I believe it is always worth fighting against tyranny and dictatorship for freedom.