The GOP is running out of ethical people to represent the conservatives. It's too funny; they're supposed to be the party of "morals."
cicerone imposter wrote:The GOP is running out of ethical people to represent the conservatives. It's too funny; they're supposed to be the party of "morals."
Wrong again,
mon sewer!
It's largely the conservative minority in the Republican Party that is the promoter of morals.
cicerone imposter wrote:The GOP is running out of ethical people to represent the conservatives. It's too funny; they're supposed to be the party of "morals."
If the GOP runs out, I would say the country is completely out. The Dems ran out a long time ago. You guys circled the wagons around the most corrupt administration in history in the 90's.
Osama bin Laden wrote:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1996.html
Osama Bin Laden "Declaration of War Against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places"-1996.
I say to you ... These youths [love] death as you love life.
Â…Those youths know that their rewards in fighting you, the USA, is double than their rewards in fighting some one else not from the people of the book. They have no intention except to enter paradise by killing you. An infidel, and enemy of God like you, cannot be in the same hell with his righteous executioner.
Quote:Parsley warns there is a "war between Islam and Christian civilization."
Parsley's warning is not without evidence to justify it.
Re: A first(?) thread on 2008: McCain,Giuliani & the Rep
nimh wrote:OK, a question about 2008 that Ive been wondering about for a while now.
I actually agree with the conservatives that the currently disastrous poll numbers for Bush, Cheney and the Republicans in Congress (all of Congress, but the Republicans in particular) don't actually need to have any consequence for the 2008 Presidential elections. [/b]
If they don't, it would defy all historical precedents.
okie wrote:cicerone imposter wrote:The GOP is running out of ethical people to represent the conservatives. It's too funny; they're supposed to be the party of "morals."
If the GOP runs out, I would say the country is completely out. The Dems ran out a long time ago. You guys circled the wagons around the most corrupt administration in history in the 90's.
More parallel universe stuff...
Awesome! That actually worked on me a bit - I mean, I flatter myself that I'm pretty well actualized although not close-minded in my views, and where I'm not it takes more than an ad designed to do so to change my standing hypothesis or lack thereof, but that one jived with some of what I was already thinking about Big Mac - the not being entitled, glad to serve kind of thing.
revel:
Do you see any problems with the land swap deal? Do you think it is not in the best interests of the public? Or is your only concern with the headline?
I see it as hypocrisy from a guy who pushed for campaign reform. Or did you not see the part where one of his fund raisers profited from the deal?
revel wrote:I see it as hypocrisy from a guy who pushed for campaign reform. Or did you not see the part where one of his fund raisers profited from the deal?
So your answers to my questions are: No ... no ... yes?
revel wrote:McCain Pushed Land Swap That Benefits Backer
Quote:PRESCOTT, Ariz. -- Sen. John McCain championed legislation that will let an Arizona rancher trade remote grassland and ponderosa pine forest here for acres of valuable federally owned property that is ready for development, a land swap that now stands to directly benefit one of his top presidential campaign fundraisers].
Interesting that you ignore this part of the story...
Quote:The Audubon Society described the exchange as the largest in Arizona history. The swap involved more than 55,000 acres of land in all, including rare expanses of desert woodland and pronghorn antelope habitat. The deal had support from many local officials and the Arizona Republic newspaper for its expansion of the Prescott National Forest.
So there was nothing illegal in the deal, according to the article you linked to.
Whats the problem?
Bob Barr's running as a Libertarian -- don't know much about him. Anyone think it will affect anything? Seems like if so it'd affect McCain -- but I'm not sure.
Barr has basically the same stance on national security that RP has so I don't expect him to garner many conservative votes from McCain...maybe from RP though.
Yes, Barr wants to pull out of Iraq immediately and is as anti global economy as RP, so there isn't much difference between the two. McCain will hone his campaign thrust to focus on lower taxes, smaller fiscal government, etc. and Barr can't gain any advantage there.
Where McCain is likely to be in some trouble is on immigration, global warming, and energy development, but I'm pretty sure he knows that and is gearing up to deal with it.
So we'll see.
Barr isn't all that appealing a character so probably the worst he will do is offset whatever damage Nader can do to the Democrats.
Coupla posts about Barr on TPM:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/194675.php
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/194712.php
Lots of interesting points -- consensus seems to be that Barr will hurt McCain, not just in terms of siphoning off votes but in terms of having some control over the discourse (as in, driving people to Obama rather than getting votes himself). Not a lot, but if it's a close election, even a little could have a real effect.
Well here's still another person's proposed solution.
545 PEOPLE
By Charlie Reese
Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.
Have you ever wondered why, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, we have deficits?
Have you ever wondered why, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, we have inflation and high taxes?
You and I don't propose a federal budget. The president does.
You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.
You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does.
You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does.
You and I don't control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.
One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president, and nine Supreme Court justices 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.
I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank.
I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a president to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.
Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.
What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits. The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.
The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House? She is the leader of the majority party. She and fellow House members, not the president, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.
It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million can not replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts -- of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.
If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair.
If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red.
If the Marines are in IRAQ , it's because they want them in IRAQ .
If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way.
There are no insoluble government problems.
Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation," or "politics" that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.
Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible.
They, and they alone, have the power.
They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees.
We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!
Charlie Reese is a former columnist of the Orlando Sentinel Newspaper.
