Put a Warrior in the White House

MontyB said:
I do think you have over looked one small detail here and that is the Democratic party's impressive ability to take several suitable candidates and then choose the one with the least charisma and chance to be elected.
Like it or not voters of all nations tend to like their leaders to show signs of life while speaking.
Click to expand...

True, but President Carter rode into Washington on the wings of discontent for the Republican Party, and rode out a mere 4 years later, losing to the "great communicator".

It's only a 4 year term after all, so, if the new President does not work out well, well just elect a new one.
The US Federal Government works best when the political pendulum swings back and forth, and the mid-terms were in my opinion no fluke or ballot counting mistake, as I believe the Country is moving away from the Republicans en masse, so I believe it will not matter who the Republicans put up for the office, as that person will carry all the sins of this current Administration with them. 'tis merely one of the many drawbacks of only having 2 major Party's to pick from.

Personally I look for this President to get himself Impeached, and could very well be removed before he leaves office at the regularly scheduled time.
 
Last edited:
True but opposing the War of 1812 was the death knell for the Federalist party... one can only hope for history to repeat itself with the Democrats and the GWOT.
 
Gator said:
True, but President Carter rode into Washington on the wings of discontent for the Republican Party, and rode out a mere 4 years later, losing to the "great communicator".

It's only a 4 year term after all, so, if the new President does not work out well, well just elect a new one.
The US Federal Government works best when the political pendulum swings back and forth, and the mid-terms were in my opinion no fluke or ballot counting mistake, as I believe the Country is moving away from the Republicans en masse, so I believe it will not matter who the Republicans put up for the office, as that person will carry all the sins of this current Administration with them. 'tis merely one of the many drawbacks of only having 2 major Party's to pick from.

Personally I look for this President to get himself Impeached, and could very well be removed before he leaves office at the regularly scheduled time.
Click to expand...

I would doubt that there will ever be a mass movement away from either party, in most cases you find that no matter how badly a government or party performs there is always a hardcore 25-30% support base (something that has always amused me is that a party could pretty much run a cardboard cutout and it would still get the hardcore vote Al Gore was a perfect example of this).


As far as GWB goes I would bet that he will serve out his time and disappear into obscurity or a bottle, it will be interesting to see how he rates once we have the benefit of hindsight (say 20-30 years). As far as impeachment goes I doubt it will happen as the democrats simply dont have the killer instinct to go after him.
 
MontyB

As far as GWB goes I would bet that he will serve out his time and disappear into obscurity or a bottle, it will be interesting to see how he rates once we have the benefit of hindsight (say 20-30 years). As far as impeachment goes I doubt it will happen as the democrats simply dont have the killer instinct to go after him.

I don't think you are going to need 20-30 years to judge GWB. That argument is true for a president that has a least a few positive accomplishments. Scientists are still trying to discover the thing W has NOT managed to totally screw up yet.

As for impeachment, there are a few reasons why the Dems wont follow impeachment. The grounds for impeachment are bountiful, lied to get us into War, illegal wiretapping, suppression of several constitutional rights, various forms of corruption, purjury (if he is ever made to testify), gross incompetance (Katrina), and now this prosecutor affair (obstruction of Justice). His goose is cooked.

So why wont the Dems prosecute? A couple of reasons. First they probably dont have the votes for a conviction. Second there isn't enough time, GWB is out of office in January 2009.

But the biggest reason the Dem's wont impeach Bush:

Bush is a Godsend to the Democrats who have their eye on the White House.

The entire Bush presidency is a train wreak, he has even made an enemy out of the the religious fanatics that elected him in the first place. The Dems are perfectly content to let this ship sink and take down every Republican 2008 candidate with it.

This is what sank the GOP in 2006, although they are loath to admit it.

As for having a 'warrior' for president. Historically presidents from career-military (not those who served, I am talking career military) backgrounds have not been the best presidents.

Eisenhower, and perhaps Polk, being the exceptions.
 
Last edited:
MontyB said:
I would doubt that there will ever be a mass movement away from either party, in most cases you find that no matter how badly a government or party performs there is always a hardcore 25-30% support base (something that has always amused me is that a party could pretty much run a cardboard cutout and it would still get the hardcore vote Al Gore was a perfect example of this).


As far as GWB goes I would bet that he will serve out his time and disappear into obscurity or a bottle, it will be interesting to see how he rates once we have the benefit of hindsight (say 20-30 years). As far as impeachment goes I doubt it will happen as the democrats simply dont have the killer instinct to go after him.
Click to expand...

Al Gore, as you call him, was the sitting Vice President of the United States of America at the time he was running for President of the United States of America, and why he got the nod..... and, the Vice President got more votes Nationally than Governor Bush on Election Day.
As far as Impeachment of President Bush, well he keeps pushing the US Congress aside and more Republicans in the Congress may become publicly upset with him, even though the Senate will most likely not have the votes for removal.
The current President is already being talked up in some circles as the worst President in US History, so, if there is a push to Impeach him, I believe it will be in his final year. Then the Democrats can use that to make any Republicans still protecting Bush look bad in the US Congress, as all the US House Seats will also be up for grabs in 2008.
Polls will no doubt need to be done to see how important Impeachment is to the US Public as a way to exact any public payment for sins committed while in office, and a lasting record of the US Publics grade on the performance of the President with regards to the Iraq War.
Impeachment in the US House is after all the way to punish a sitting President in his or her second term.
 
Soooooooooooooooo back to Mr Hunter... it might behoove our supporters of the jac...erm donkey to start a thread about their best candidate. But then its always easier to snipe than to build, just look at the media. So far the only criticism of the man has been that someone didn't know about him, I'd offer that that is a good thing in today's day and age. Real men, like real heroes, don't need to have their name in lights. They simply accept the job and get 'er done. I sincerely hope to call the man the CINC come January 2009.
 
 
Bulldog - your Duncan Hunter looks good to me, although as an outside I guess I should not interfere. But those attitudes appeal to me.
'On Israel' thread reminded me:-

They asked me a question.

Which was this
Why do the Israelis
Constantly fight the Arabs
And their cohorts

I replied
With a question

Which was this

Why does the little David
Always
Ride out
To meet
The colossus
Goliath
Well
If you were an Israeli
And you considered
Their problem

Which is this

If the Arabs
Stop firing
The battle ends
But
If the Israelis
Stop firing

Israel ends

What would you do



They ignored my question
c.2007.
.
 
I didn't know much about D.Hunter. So I read up on him. Basically he wishes a continuation of the Bush Administration. His policies are almost Identical to those of Bush and in a few examples even more extreme.

http://www.ontheissues.org/CA/Duncan_Hunter.htm (from bulldogg)

For example:

Anti Abortion
Anti Stem Cell Research
Wishes to Make Patriot Act permanent
Anti-Affirmative Action
Pro-Flag Descreation
Heavily Pro-Business
Pro-Religious Right
Pro Oil industry (including the highly controversial Bush-Cheney National Energy Policy).
Strongly anti-environment
Wishes to withdraw from WTO
Anti-Unversal Healthcare\ Strongly pro HMO/Pharmaceutical companies
Supports the Bush plan of spying on US citizens without oversight
Strongly anti Union
Pro tax cuts for millionaires death-tax/estate tax/income/inheritance
Against NET neutrality

I think the last 8 years of the far-right extremist rule has been more then long enough. The last thing the US needs is George W. Bush III. If the GOP wants any chance to keep the White House (which is already there are some very ominous signs regardless who is the candidate) they'll need someone who will bring the party back toward the center from the far right. Right now, that means Guiliani or Romney.

If they try and run a Bush clone the Clinton Steamroller is going to run them right over...
 
Sorry to interupt, but even taking into account the slant on mmarsh's
list of issues, that still doesn't appear to me to represent an extremist view. Very pragmatic and no nonsense, yes, but that is the necessity of defence these days. Since when, in America, is a pro religious approach described as extreme ? And to have concerns regarding the holocaust of generations of unborn babes ? This is now considered exteme? Don't go down our route (Europe/Britain) guys. Don't be led by the Chatterati.
Sorry - I'll butt out.

PS. A neutral board is no-man's board.
 
Last edited:
Del Boy said:
Sorry to interupt, but even taking into account the slant on mmarsh's
list of issues, that still doesn't appear to me to represent an extremist view. Very pragmatic and no nonsense, yes, but that is the necessity of defence these days. Since when, in America, is a pro religious approach described as extreme ? And to have concerns regarding the holocaust of generations of unborn babes ? This is now considered exteme? Don't go down our route (Europe/Britain) guys. Don't be led by the Chatterati.
Sorry - I'll butt out.

PS. A neutral board is no-man's board.
Click to expand...


Dell Boy

Slant? There is no slant. That is his voting record in the US House of Representatives. Check the source if you don't believe me.

And It is an extremist view because almost none of the issues that Duncan Hunter endorses are in the American mainstream (nor I suspect in the British Mainstream either). They are almost all either fringe or special-interest issues, and they are the same issues that our current, and very unpopular president supports. Bush has got in heaps of trouble for placing Special\Fringe Interests ahead of the American mainstream.

The religious right in America are extremists. Some people consider them more of a cult than a religious organization. Groups like the Christian Coalition and Focus on the Family are a small but very vocal voice in American politics. Try as they might, they DO NOT represent Mainstream America. They push the most radical agenda in American politics despite the fact that the overwhelming majority (Including most other Christians) find them abhorrent. Their agenda includes racism, homophobia, forced religious indoctrination, intolerance to other religions (Especially Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Catholics and Mormons) and to people who don't share their political views. They have been known to use violence and terrorism to get their agenda across. Sometimes the similarities between them and al-Qaeda is frightening similar.

So yes, they are extremists.

And by the way, if you're against Abortion your entitled to that opinion, but to equate abortion to the Holocaust is both stupid and insensitive. That's precisely the type of nonsense that gets one labeled as an 'extremist' in the US.
 
Last edited:
mmarsh

first let me assure you, friend, that I did not aim to infer that you were slanting that list. I was merely pointing out that the list used was one of obvious negative slant - it was not FOR the guy in any way, was it; neither could it be called neutral.

Secondly, as a non-american, I would not wish to as as offensive as to argue your country's internal politics with you. But I would say it gets up my nose when I hear The President of America receiving abuse here in the UK. So I must leave such matters with you, out of respect.

However, that does not qualify you to refer to me as stupid for my description of the massacre of millions of unborn babes so far, for the sake of convenience or contraception. Of course it has been a holocaust of a much larger scale, and I probably have greater knowledge of holocaust than yourself, although I am prepared to stand corrected. I do not belittle the WW11 holocaust in any way in making my point.

Just how would you describe what has been dealt these innocents?

My view is not drawn from religious ideology, but from a humanitarian
point of view, and by use of the brain I try to use from time to time.
The question is not one of rocket science, is it. One does not have to be Albert Cushing Crehore to work it out. Only denial stands in the way.

It is good, I believe, not to label those who do not agree with you an extremist; yes, I do mean me. The cap does not fit.

Having said that, my original reply was not of personal intent, and as it
happens, Bill Clinton had my full support as President of America. As I see it, when the election is over, the people of America have spoken, and that is good enough for me. I would not wish to argue your internal politics, it would be inappropriate. Thank you kindly for your attention.
 
Last edited:
Sir

I never once referred to you as stupid. What I said was your equating the abortion issue (which is legal in most western countries) with the Holocaust (which violated every law of humanity conceivable) as a stupid comparison and inappropriate. That was not an insult, I stand by my comment.

As I said, you are entitled to your pro-life views, and I won't get into a who-knows-how-much-about-the-holocaust debate with you, but I will tell you that my information comes from my grandfather, who as a POW had the rather unfortunate experience of being sent to a forced labor camp inside Germany. My Grandmother and Greatuncle witnessed friends and collegues being arrested by the Gestapo, most of which were never seen again. So when you try and use 'holocaust' to justify your views on a totally unrelated political issue you insult those who actually witnessed or survived it, and making such statements won't help your cause either. If you didnt like my reaction, then I would suggest that to choose your words more carefully next time.

As for the rest,

Foreigners are entitled to criticize the US government. We Americans greatly enjoy criticizing the Governments of other countries (including the UK on occasion), so its only fair for non-Americans to criticize ours, espicially right now when its deserved. The USA is not some isolated island, some of the decisions we make WILL impact people of other countries in positive\negative ways. Just look at the mess the invasion of Iraq caused. So why shouldn't other people say something?

I agree its best not to use labels, but when a minority of people are willing to use whatever means necessary to force the majority into accepting their views, it is unavoidable. That is even true when the cause they fight is just, such as Abolitionists like John Brown.

Incidentally if you liked Bill Clinton, you will hate Duncun Hunter. They are polar opposites.
 
Last edited:
mmarsh Sir - We must agree to disagree here. Firstly, you used the word stupid. Secondly, I never suggested that I was pro-life or that that was my cause. My view is perfectly straight forward and with no slant - generations of Americans, among others, have had their lives snuffed out for reasons which amount to convenience or contraception, excepting, of course, those of extreme circumstance of suffering, with which I put aside my objections. Those are the cold facts, they are staring you in the face.
This amounts to an even greater toll than that of the holocaust, horrific as that was. I am simply expressing my opinion on behalf of those kids. I have never become involved in the debate before, but have long held my personal view; where are the babies rights.

I know this is most uncomfortable, but we have to face it and come to terms with it, regardless of the association of the 'extremists' to whom you refer. Do you refer to anyone who speaks of immigration control as a racist?

Right, now I am pleased to hear that you listened to your grandfather.
I admire and share his views and yours on this issue, and if you were to describe the holocaust as an issue of mine you would be right on the button.

I happened to be here at the time. In 1965, on a business trip to Warsaw, I was unexpectedly taken for a visit to Auschwitz. I cried there.
I also had relatives who were first into Belsen , as soldiers at the end of the war, and of course was around when all our Tommies came home with their accounts. Around 1950 I was in Germany myself, as a kid of 16 or so.

OK, here is the pay-off. Just a few of years ago the Auschwitz records
revealed that over 100 of my family (my wonderful Grandma's side) perished in that camp. They were basically tulip growers in Holland, and some had been visiting my Grandma here when war was declared, and hurried back to their homeland.

The American soldiers who I knew when they were posted here in WW11
saved me from the same fate, obviously, and although I was completely unaware of such matters, except that my homes had been destroyed by bombs, I have been forever grateful , and I have urged every Englishman to remember who the US people have been to us. Here, we must always stand with America.

Know your friends, I say.
mmarsh, I thank you for your attitude towards The Holocaust, you and I have that much in common.

My concern, not held as an activist, you must understand, is that abortion may eventually stand in history as an even larger stain on humanity.
And denial will have been the culprit. In a world which holds concerns regarding the destruction of insects and rats, we blithely roll on murdering babies.

I hold my personal opinion, you are entitled to yours. I have laid mine before you.
 
Last edited:
Gator said:
Is Abortion up to 24 weeks still Legal in England?
Click to expand...
Off the cuff, I could not tell you, but whatever it is, it is far too high.
At least in the USA you give the matter some consideration. Here our doctors are only just now awakening .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top