Republicans, the "morals" party... [Archive]

Qikdraw

09-27-2005, 05:57 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by missouriboy:
I don't get it either. Nowhere did the article mention "Republican."

The man is a pedophile. What's that got to do with his politics? Or with hypocrisy?

Is pedophilia part of the platform of any political party? Which one?

(BTW, I'm not a Republican.) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

He's a registered Republican and was lauded by the Republicans, along with a bunch of others who won their elections.

The hypocracy part comes in when Republicans continually point out "failing morals" in democrats for supporting things like gay marriage, or are pro-choice, yet ignore their own party's sex issues, corruption etc...

Sure there are idiots in both parites who are guilty of anything, but its the Republicans who continually push a "moral" agenda, but ignore their own problems with "morals".

Qikdraw

hm0504

09-27-2005, 06:51 AM

One has to remember that not all Republicans are part of the religious right -- though many are. I don't think it is correct to paint all Republicans with the same brush.

Here in Canada, the Conservatives (which were taken over by social conservative-dominated group) may be on the verge of a major battle that will, hopefully, see the word "Progressive" become part of their vocabulary again -- they were originally named the "Progressive Conservative" party before the takeover.

Trailscout

09-27-2005, 06:56 AM

There are pro-choice Republicans, conservationist Republicans, pro-life Democrats, and people in both parties whose personal lives exemplify the ideals they publicly promote.

For the most part, our leaders have not taken positions against moral behavior. The primary difference is that a moralist wing of the Republican party wants public policy to mandate private moral behavior.

They would have you forget that one can effectively advocate moral behavior without imposing it by law.

09-27-2005, 07:10 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hm0504:
One has to remember that not all Republicans are part of the religious right -- though many are. I don't think it is correct to paint all Republicans with the same brush.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes you are correct, not all Republicans are extremists. However, many of the ones that aren't extremists aren't doing anything about the ones who are. They are letting them speak for all Republicans. There are a few exceptions like McCain but not enough. They need to speak up and let people know they are there and they are against what the religious right is doing.

Hooked

09-27-2005, 07:25 AM

from a moral stand point I have only this to say:

Bill and Monica
W and Iraq
Which one is harder to swallow?

Boreas

09-27-2005, 10:16 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hm0504:Here in Canada, the Conservatives (which were taken over by social conservative-dominated group) may be on the verge of a major battle that will, hopefully, see the word "Progressive" become part of their vocabulary again -- they were originally named the "Progressive Conservative" party before the takeover. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh please oh please!

Okay, that was off topic. To contribute more to the topic.....if a person or group of people are going to have "morals" in their speech, platform or whatever, and if they accuse others of having bad morals, well then their "morals" had better be impecable.

To paraphrase: "Let s/he who has not sinned cast the first stone."

hm0504

09-27-2005, 10:46 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Cyndiannaked:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hm0504:
One has to remember that not all Republicans are part of the religious right -- though many are. I don't think it is correct to paint all Republicans with the same brush.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes you are correct, not all Republicans are extremists. However, many of the ones that aren't extremists aren't doing anything about the ones who are. They are letting them speak for all Republicans. There are a few exceptions like McCain but not enough. They need to speak up and let people know they are there and they are against what the religious right is doing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Cyndiann, Still_Boreas,
I totally agree! Moderate U.S. Republicans need to shout that they're not going to take it anymore! As I mentioned, in Canada, progressive Conservatives are beginning what I hope will be a groundswell to rescue the Conservative party from its current domination by the religious right (see
http://www.bourque.com/jamieson.html
for example).

Of course, in Canada, it helps that the Conservatives are not in power and low in the polls; not sure if we'd hear the same dissent if they were in power. Unfortunately, the religious right has given the Conservative party a huge war chest and they now have oodles of money to spend on an election.

roadrambler2

09-27-2005, 11:45 AM

Lobotomy's for Republican's ---it's the law!
I'll take 8 years of "Slick Wille" to the " war monger that is there now thaks to corporate America--aka- Haliburtion

TANZ

09-27-2005, 02:35 PM

We recently had a similar case down here in New Zealand.
A staunch "moral campaigner" and leader of a christian based political party here,was found guilty of sexual assault and abuse on a number of under aged girls (10/11 yr olds).
He appeared,some years ago, on a nudism documentary down here,"Nude Zealand"voicing his opinion on nudity and down crying it as immoral and degrading to women in general.Man what a hypocrite.
I think he was also the prosecuting attorney in some cases convicting chid abusers.He's gonna have a lot of fun in prison aint he.
In his statement upon conviction,he apologised to his family,his friends and his church,but not a word for the victims or their families.
May he rot in hell!!!

Naturally Kiwi

shomymojo

09-27-2005, 03:09 PM

As a life long...Democrat..I can tell you that I am equally tired of the "far left " that have hijacked MY party's leadership...just like the moderate Republicans are probably tired of the "far right" Republicans running their party...we all need balance...it used to be that the moderate voices in both parties carried the day...but no longer...IMHO...all civility in national politics is gone...and shrill extremism rules both parties...sad...very sad

hm0504

09-27-2005, 04:55 PM

While we're on the topic, I found this investigative report by Stephen Colbert of The Daily Show to be a very informative look at Big Tent Republicanism:
http://tinyurl.com/7lbmv

This is a must see video!

luvnaturism

09-27-2005, 05:02 PM

Reality is this:

Both parties have elected officials who are persons of integrity, ability, and high moral character. They are unfortunately far too few in number.

Both parties have elected officials who are persons lacking integrity, lacking ability, and of low moral character. They are unfortunately far too many in number.

And, as others have pointed, the US political scene is radically polorized, with one party held captive by the radical left and the other party held captive by the radical right.

This has happened before, and will no doubt happen again. But before it happens again there can be expected to be a period when politics becomes once again more centrist. In the meantime what we get is sadly ineffective government. Not the worst in the world, certainly; but far less than what we need.

NudeTopher

09-27-2005, 07:04 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hm0504:
While we're on the topic, I found this investigative report by Stephen Colbert of The Daily Show to be a very informative look at Big Tent Republicanism:
http://tinyurl.com/7lbmv

This is a must see video! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Another Daily Show Fan http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Bob S.

09-27-2005, 07:11 PM

"He's a registered Republican and was lauded by the Republicans, along with a bunch of others who won their elections."

And now, they will desert him for his illegal activity. Should the Republican Party, or Democrat Party for that matter, screen everyone for potential of committing such crimes? Should they have been able to foresee this happening? If they knew he was a pedophile before, they would have quickly kicked him out of the party.

Now you accuse Republicans of hypocracy, so does that mean this is something expected in Democrats Qikdraw? What would you say about an acclaimed Democrat who is busted for attempting to have sex with underage girls? Hypocrats for suggesting that they don't support it or typical behaviour?

Bill and Monica
W and Iraq
Which one is harder to swallow?

Hooked, you did not just use the word swallow, did you? http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Bob S.

09-27-2005, 07:20 PM

Qikdraw

09-27-2005, 09:18 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bob S.:
And now, they will desert him for his illegal activity. Should the Republican Party, or Democrat Party for that matter, screen everyone for potential of committing such crimes? Should they have been able to foresee this happening? If they knew he was a pedophile before, they would have quickly kicked him out of the party. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

One thing I do know is that criminals should not be allowed in politics at all, at any level. So yes there should be some form of screening going on.

The problem you are ignoring is that Republicans hold themselves up to be the "moral" party, yet it also has its share of problem politicians, yet these seem to slip under the Republican radar. How about all the ethics violations Tom Delay has been charged with? Why hasn't the "moral" party asked him to step down? Because its full of hypocrits is why.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Now you accuse Republicans of hypocracy, so does that mean this is something expected in Democrats Qikdraw? What would you say about an acclaimed Democrat who is busted for attempting to have sex with underage girls? Hypocrats for suggesting that they don't support it or typical behaviour? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would say they should step down and be prosecuted of course. The thing is that Republicans use one or two democrats as an example for ALL democrats, yet when the tables are turned and we see a few Republicans who go against the "moral" stand, well thats just a few people, the party can't be blamed for that... http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif Now THAT's hypocracy!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Bill and Monica
W and Iraq
Which one is harder to swallow?

Hooked, you did not just use the word swallow, did you? http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Who was the Republican Congressman vocally going after Clinton for having an affair, yet at the same time was having one himself? Now THAT's hypocracy!

Qikdraw

Naturist Mark

09-27-2005, 11:08 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Qikdraw:

Who was the Republican Congressman vocally going after Clinton for having an affair, yet at the same time was having one himself? Now THAT's hypocracy!
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bob Barr
Henry Hyde
Newt Gingrich
Bob Livingston

missouriboy

09-28-2005, 05:20 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I don't think it is correct to paint all Republicans with the same brush. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Thanks, hm0504, my point exactly. The topic title implies the subject is the Republican Party, then the article is about one individual pedophile, who was quite obviously not acting within the auspices of his political party.

Now, how many different flavors of "hypocrisy" are there, anyhow?

ken0254

09-28-2005, 12:20 PM

Gee,

And now Tom DeLay has been indicted. Magine That!!! And that idiot Sean Hannity is trying to give him a pass just like he does with every crime a republican does. Were DeLay a democrat, he'd be going after him just like he went after Clinton and Kerry. Talk about being a hypocrite!!!

ken

jon71

09-28-2005, 02:10 PM

There are a handful of decent republicans but their own party marginalizes them and calls them rinos (Republicans in name only). I hope Delay is in jail for a long time. That might wake people up. Despite all the evidence against him he is still in full denial mode.

fred950

09-28-2005, 05:25 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jon71:
There are a handful of decent republicans but their own party marginalizes them and calls them rinos (Republicans in name only). I hope Delay is in jail for a long time. That might wake people up. Despite all the evidence against him he is still in full denial mode. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sort of like two other Republicans of some thirty years ago...Agnew and Nixon!

Bob S.

09-28-2005, 07:50 PM

"One thing I do know is that criminals should not be allowed in politics at all, at any level. So yes there should be some form of screening going on."

Politics seems to make criminals out of everybody. But should they do a "Minority Report" on every candidate Qikdraw? Should they predict what crimes he or she is capable of committing?

"The problem you are ignoring is that Republicans hold themselves up to be the "moral" party..."

And the Democrats are holding themselves as the "immoral" party? The Democrats may not hold that "self-descriptor", but they still believe in being moral. My point is that anyone who claims to be moral while doing something immoral is wrong and whoever condemns someone else for their own immorality when they, themselves are being immoral is a hypocrite.

I've seen a ton of hypocracy on both sides of the aisle. Unless, of course, you are suggesting that democrats are not moral and threfore, cannot claim hypocracy for calling someone else's immorality.

"Who was the Republican Congressman vocally going after Clinton for having an affair, yet at the same time was having one himself? Now THAT's hypocracy!"

Yes, I agree with that. But I was merely going for the jocular with that one.

Bob S.

Qikdraw

09-28-2005, 08:38 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by missouriboy:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I don't think it is correct to paint all Republicans with the same brush. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Thanks, hm0504, my point exactly. The topic title implies the subject is the Republican Party, then the article is about one individual pedophile, who was quite obviously not acting within the auspices of his political party.

Now, how many different flavors of "hypocrisy" are there, anyhow? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The point I was trying to make is that Republicans, and a number on these boards as well, take a single democrat and then paint the whole party with the same brush.

Now we have republicans, or at least republican defenders, saying that is unfair, and I agree. However where are you when people blast democrats with a broad brush? You're not found to be defending democrats, and therin lies the hypocracy.

Do you get my point now?

Qikdraw

P.J.

09-28-2005, 08:41 PM

Once upon a time, I was a proud Young Democrat. If the far left didn't gradually and so thoroughly hijack the party, I would probably still be a Democrat.

I don't blame the Socialists, Planned Parenthood, the homosexual activists, nor anyone whose views lean to the left for the deplorable condition of the Democratic Party of today.

I blame my fellow Christians who took such lame stands as applauding a candidate's stand on "the other issues" while rolling over as the far left took over.

I wish that we had some pro-life Democrats who leaned towards the right and some Republicans who leaned towards the left.

Of course, those who vote the straight party ticket without looking into the candidates' stands on issues are criminally ignorant and should do everyone a favor and stay home on Election Day.

Qikdraw

09-28-2005, 08:47 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bob S.:
Politics seems to make criminals out of everybody. But should they do a "Minority Report" on every candidate Qikdraw? Should they predict what crimes he or she is capable of committing? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now thats simply a ridiculas statement Bob, and unworthy of you. What I'm saying is that anyone with a criminal record, even ones "pardoned" at the last minute by a president, should not be allowed in office. I think that once you have committed a crime you lose the right to serve the nation in a political office.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">And the Democrats are holding themselves as the "immoral" party? The Democrats may not hold that "self-descriptor", but they still believe in being moral. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course they do, and they also talk about it as well. Democrats, however, do not wear it on their shoulder like a badge.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">My point is that anyone who claims to be moral while doing something immoral is wrong and whoever condemns someone else for their own immorality when they, themselves are being immoral is a hypocrite. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree completely.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I've seen a ton of hypocracy on both sides of the aisle. Unless, of course, you are suggesting that democrats are not moral and threfore, cannot claim hypocracy for calling someone else's immorality. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course there has been a ton of hypocracy from both sides, I'm not saying otherwise.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Yes, I agree with that. But I was merely going for the jocular with that one.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No I know. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif I was just using a bit of that to make a point is all. I hope you'll forgive me? http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Qikdraw

Unwired

09-28-2005, 08:54 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by P.J.:
I don't blame the Socialists, Planned Parenthood, the homosexual activists, nor anyone whose views lean to the left for the deplorable condition of the Democratic Party of today.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fair enough. Nor do I blame the Neo-Cons, Operation Rescue, the homophobes, nor anyone whose views lean to the right for the deplorable ideological condition of the Republican Party of today.

missouriboy

09-29-2005, 03:44 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Qikdraw:
...Republicans, and a number on these boards as well, take a single democrat and then paint the whole party with the same brush.

Now we have republicans, or at least republican defenders, saying that is unfair, and I agree. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Well! Thanks for agreeing that the way you started this thread was unfair. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

missouriboy

09-29-2005, 03:53 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Unwired:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by P.J.:
I don't blame the Socialists, Planned Parenthood, the homosexual activists, nor anyone whose views lean to the left for the deplorable condition of the Democratic Party of today.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fair enough. Nor do I blame the Neo-Cons, Operation Rescue, the homophobes, nor anyone whose views lean to the right for the deplorable ideological condition of the Republican Party of today. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Now, that's the spirit! Full awareness of the scourge of two-party politics comes when one finally realizes that all this so-called "liberal/conservative" carping is designed to divert your attention from the stuff that really matters... the fact that the agenda is More Big Government and that the parties are just two sides of the same coin, and are used as foils to make you think that government works for the people, something that has subtly gone out the window decades ago.

NudeTopher

09-29-2005, 04:05 AM

If you are looking for examples of morality in the Republican Party better examples would be DeLay, Frist, and Abramson; one indictment and two federal investigations at the highest levels.

Of course this is meaningless if you follow the party line that corruption (and insider trading) are moral activities.

09-29-2005, 04:20 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by missouriboy:
Now, that's the spirit! Full awareness of the scourge of two-party politics comes when one finally realizes that all this so-called "liberal/conservative" carping is designed to divert your attention from the stuff that really matters... the fact that the agenda is More Big Government and that the parties are just two sides of the same coin, and are used as foils to make you think that government works for the people, something that has subtly gone out the window decades ago. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I guess you've forgotten that Clinton's very first major commitment was to shrink the government. Gore had a huge hand in that too. they accomplished that very well, even shrank the welfare ranks significantly. When Bush came in the government exploaded by a full third.

NudeTopher

09-29-2005, 04:35 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Cyndiannaked:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by missouriboy:
Now, that's the spirit! Full awareness of the scourge of two-party politics comes when one finally realizes that all this so-called "liberal/conservative" carping is designed to divert your attention from the stuff that really matters... the fact that the agenda is More Big Government and that the parties are just two sides of the same coin, and are used as foils to make you think that government works for the people, something that has subtly gone out the window decades ago. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I guess you've forgotten that Clinton's very first major commitment was to shrink the government. Gore had a huge hand in that too. they accomplished that very well, even shrank the welfare ranks significantly. When Bush came in the government exploaded by a full third. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The government is actually now a larger employer then the numbers indicate. There is a major trend to outsource/outhire so that the numbers of employees working for the gov't look lower then they actually number. When they gov't uses contractors instead of directly hired labor it means that health, death, and retirement benefits don't need to be paid. Similarly, these contractors don't need to follow the same guidelines when it comes to non-discrimination.

It would not surprise me that if VP Cheney survives his health ills, and the current term he hopes to be appointed to a new cabinet position in the next administration...Secretary of Halliburton. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

09-29-2005, 04:57 AM

You are most correct!

roadrambler2

09-29-2005, 07:11 AM

Bill Frist shurely didn't know his stock's were going in the toilet,and Tom Delay is a upstanding straight arrow! Hey iv'e got a bridge for you in Brooklyn that's for sale.
Come on O'Riely+ Hannity,lets see you rake them over the coals! I'll be holding my breath !
Run Well and Smooth---roadrambler

ken0254

09-29-2005, 09:57 AM

Hey Roadrambler,

Ain't gonna happen!!!! Frist and Delay are just "victims" of hatred for republicans. Never mind that Hannity and Limbaugh give passes to the likes of Ollie North... hhmm... didn't he lie to congress about some little boon doggle in Nicaragua, and Newt Gingrich who, IF I'm not mistaken was fooling around on his wife while she was getting cancer treatments in the hospital? Oh well, who cares about morals anyways? I guess they are just an obstacle to work around.

ken

Hooked

09-29-2005, 10:19 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by P.J.:
I wish that we had some pro-life Democrats who leaned towards the right and some Republicans who leaned towards the left.

----------------------------------------------
Well, I don't claim to be a democrat but I definitely lean left in my political views and I must say that the state of abortion in this country is not how I would want it to be. So in this vein, I'm with you on that. I would never run out and join the Republican party over that one issue though.
---------------------------------------------

Of course, those who vote the straight party ticket without looking into the candidates' stands on issues are criminally ignorant and should do everyone a favor and stay home on Election Day.

--------------------------------------------
Man, there are some people I would love to say that to but I don't want to come across as being arrogant or presumptuous but Oh yes, I feel that way sometimes for sure! This is one of the reasons I cannot have a political discussion with my Mom since she's told me many times that she just votes a straight ticket every election.
---------------------------------------------
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

hm0504

09-29-2005, 03:18 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NudeTopher (christopher):
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Cyndiannaked:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by missouriboy:
Now, that's the spirit! Full awareness of the scourge of two-party politics comes when one finally realizes that all this so-called "liberal/conservative" carping is designed to divert your attention from the stuff that really matters... the fact that the agenda is More Big Government and that the parties are just two sides of the same coin, and are used as foils to make you think that government works for the people, something that has subtly gone out the window decades ago. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I guess you've forgotten that Clinton's very first major commitment was to shrink the government. Gore had a huge hand in that too. they accomplished that very well, even shrank the welfare ranks significantly. When Bush came in the government exploaded by a full third. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The government is actually now a larger employer then the numbers indicate. There is a major trend to outsource/outhire so that the numbers of employees working for the gov't look lower then they actually number. When they gov't uses contractors instead of directly hired labor it means that health, death, and retirement benefits don't need to be paid. Similarly, these contractors don't need to follow the same guidelines when it comes to non-discrimination.

It would not surprise me that if VP Cheney survives his health ills, and the current term he hopes to be appointed to a new cabinet position in the next administration...Secretary of Halliburton. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Generally, I think one can tell how "large" a government is by the amount of money it spends.

From the CATO institute [1]:
"Total government spending grew by 33 percent during Bush’s first term. The federal budget as a share of the economy grew from 18.5 percent of GDP on Clinton’s last day in office to 20.3 percent by the end of Bush’s first term."

[1] http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3750

Like in Canada, the U.S. conservatives talk about how they are the party of small government in contrast to those tax-and-spend liberals, but historical reality shows it is the so-called samll government, fiscal conservatives who consistently massively increase both the size of government and spending.

Thus as someone who actually is a fiscal conservative, I thus vote liberal in the liberal direction.

Boreas

09-29-2005, 03:38 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ken0254:
Hey Roadrambler,

Ain't gonna happen!!!! Frist and Delay are just "victims" of hatred for republicans. Never mind that Hannity and Limbaugh give passes to the likes of Ollie North... hhmm... didn't he lie to congress about some little boon doggle in Nicaragua, and Newt Gingrich who, IF I'm not mistaken was fooling around on his wife while she was getting cancer treatments in the hospital? Oh well, who cares about morals anyways? I guess they are just an obstacle to work around.

ken </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is interesting how everything comes down to "hatred for the Republicans" or Bush bashing. Is it not at all possible for the Republicans to have actually sinned?

Qikdraw

09-29-2005, 05:57 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by missouriboy:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Qikdraw:
...Republicans, and a number on these boards as well, take a single democrat and then paint the whole party with the same brush.

Now we have republicans, or at least republican defenders, saying that is unfair, and I agree. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Well! Thanks for agreeing that the way you started this thread was unfair. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

My starting the thread the way I did was to make a point, which obviously you are ignoring because you didn't comment on it.

Qikdraw

P.J.

09-30-2005, 01:06 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hooked:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by P.J.:
I wish that we had some pro-life Democrats who leaned towards the right and some Republicans who leaned towards the left.

----------------------------------------------
Well, I don't claim to be a democrat but I definitely lean left in my political views and I must say that the state of abortion in this country is not how I would want it to be. So in this vein, I'm with you on that. I would never run out and join the Republican party over that one issue though.
---------------------------------------------

Of course, those who vote the straight party ticket without looking into the candidates' stands on issues are criminally ignorant and should do everyone a favor and stay home on Election Day.

--------------------------------------------
Man, there are some people I would love to say that to but I don't want to come across as being arrogant or presumptuous but Oh yes, I feel that way sometimes for sure! This is one of the reasons I cannot have a political discussion with my Mom since she's told me many times that she just votes a straight ticket every election.
---------------------------------------------
</div></BLOCKQUOTE> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's nice to find a comment on my posts that isn't viciously left-winged. (I'm convinced that a lot of the mean-spiritedness is really uncalled for.)

Whether or not we agree, we could probably have some interesting discussions.

If not, we could probably be just good friends.

Often, on the CFF, there is so much acrimony, instead of serious and friendly debate.

missouriboy

09-30-2005, 03:28 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Cyndiannaked:
I guess you've forgotten that Clinton's very first major commitment was to shrink the government. Gore had a huge hand in that too. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>No, I haven't forgotten. Nothing ever goes up (or comes down, well maybe except for kited stocks) in a straight line. The overall trend for government is UP, with the occasional downspike which will be bragged on bigtime by whoever does it.

But can you cite the actual change in government spending during Clinton's terms?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> they accomplished that very well, even shrank the welfare ranks significantly. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>The Welfare Reform was not a Clinton initiative, rather it was a long-term thing accomplished by many people, Democrat and Republican alike, that happened to hit the White House during Clinton's watch. He signed it, and Yes I'm really glad that he did; it was the sensible thing to do.

IIRC, it had its origins in the Republicans' "Contract With America," remember that?

NudeTopher

09-30-2005, 03:33 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Hooked:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by P.J.:
I wish that we had some pro-life Democrats who leaned towards the right and some Republicans who leaned towards the left.
<span class="ev_code_BLUE">Haven't we already banned discussion on penis positions?</span> http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
----------------------------------------------
Well, I don't claim to be a democrat but I definitely lean left in my political views and I must say that the state of abortion in this country is not how I would want it to be. So in this vein, I'm with you on that. I would never run out and join the Republican party over that one issue though. <span class="ev_code_BLUE">I don't believe that anybody is happy with the quantity of abortions. Those of us that favor that women retain the right to choose are unhappy with the number of unwanted pregnancies. Yet, those that wish to take away the right to choose are invariably the ones that fight comprehensive sex education in the schools and support abstinance only/virginity pledges that don't work. If it wasn't so sad it would be laughable; those that are the loudest voices on the anti-abortion side are silent when it comes to comprehensive sex education including contraception.</span>
---------------------------------------------

NudeTopher

09-30-2005, 03:39 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by missouriboy:

IIRC, it had its origins in the Republicans' "Contract With America," remember that? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Considering all that has happend since the Republicans took control, shouldn't that be more aptly called the Republican's "Contract ON America?

missouriboy

09-30-2005, 05:39 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Haven't we already banned discussion on penis positions? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>HaHa. Don't forget that Bill Clinton's leaned both ways. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

hm0504

09-30-2005, 11:08 AM

Not all Republicans are wholly anti-abortion...

Former Republican Education Secretary William Bennett says that aborting "every black baby in this country" would reduce the crime rate:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/30/bennett.comments/index.html

Hooked

09-30-2005, 12:43 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by missouriboy:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> they accomplished that very well, even shrank the welfare ranks significantly. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>The Welfare Reform was not a Clinton initiative, rather it was a long-term thing accomplished by many people, Democrat and Republican alike, that happened to hit the White House during Clinton's watch. He signed it, and Yes I'm really glad that he did; it was the sensible thing to do.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It seems to me that if it happened under his admin and he signed it, he gets credit for it. Not saying it was all him but people don't tend to disect where the credit goes until it concerns a president they don't like. That way they can say it's coincidence and not a good deed on his behalf. For simplicity's sake, I'd say Clinton gets a gold star for that one...it's only fair. We can't sit around saying all the people who had a hand in every initiative. The fact is the pres makes the final call in alot of it.

Hooked

09-30-2005, 12:56 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hm0504:
Not all Republicans are wholly anti-abortion...

Former Republican Education Secretary William Bennett says that aborting "every black baby in this country" would reduce the crime rate:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/30/bennett.comments/index.html </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh wow, I saw him on Hannity and Combs (sp?) last night. I don't watch Fox News but my parents do habitually (they need their brainwashing fix daily, poor addicts). He was allowed to say his peace and clarify what he MEANT when he said what he said and guess what...he STILL sounded like a racist. All the while boo hooing about people taking what he said "out of context" I couldn't help but wonder why the hell he works in mass media if he didn't want people to respond to what he has to say. He acted as if people were upset with the concept of aborting all black babys when clearly no person of half a brain cell would think that's what he was really suggesting as a solution. The part that offended me the most is that he equated high black population with high crime rates. Crime is a multi-faceted social problem that cannot be equated with an ethnicity, which is what he did. It wasn't his silly, sarcastic "solution" that offended me and probably many others, it's the fact that he revealed his own racism without even realizing it by presuming his logic was sound (black people = crime) although his arguement was of course flawed (intentionally, to make his point). This man may make every effort in his daily life to not be racist and treat everyone equally, I don't know him personally and I've never heard his radio show. But his comment clearly shows his inner attitude on race and that's something I hope he feels a need to work on in the future.

By the way, he could have easily made his point without bringing race into the arguement at all and therein lies the responsibility. But my Dad made a good point while it was all going on (even though both my parents took his side, big surprise) He said, "Who really cares what this a*s thinks anyway?" It kinda made me think "oh yeah..." LOL

oh and I especially love this part::
Bennett's 1993 repackaging of traditional morality tales, "The Book of Virtues," became a bestseller, and Bennett became a popular lecturer on moral issues. But in 2003, stung by news reports that he had lost millions of dollars in Las Vegas and Atlantic City over the last decade, he publicly renounced gambling and vowed to stay away from the slots from then on.

No thank you, I don't need a hypocrite as my Jiminy Cricket.

missouriboy

10-01-2005, 03:49 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hooked:
...people don't tend to disect where the credit goes until it concerns a president they don't like. That way they can say it's coincidence and not a good deed on his behalf. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>C'mon, don't try to bait me with that stuff. I said I was glad he signed it, didn't I?<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> For simplicity's sake, I'd say Clinton gets a gold star for that one...it's only fair. We can't sit around saying all the people who had a hand in every initiative. The fact is the pres makes the final call in alot of it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Be simple about it if you insist, but I have to disagree. The pres wouldn't get the opportunity to make that final call without the prior initiative of Congress. When he does something on his own initiative, that's when he gets the gold star... or lump of coal, as in the case of Bush going into Iraq.

Bob S.

10-01-2005, 03:05 PM

"Now thats simply a ridiculas statement Bob, and unworthy of you."

Maybe it was just a misunderstanding. I asked you: Should the Republican Party, or Democrat Party for that matter, screen everyone for potential of committing such crimes? to which you replied So yes there should be some form of screening going on.

I assumed you meant that there should be psychological screening to see who would be most apt to committ a crime. I guess there was something amiss in the translation.

"What I'm saying is that anyone with a criminal record, even ones "pardoned" at the last minute by a president, should not be allowed in office."

To a degree, I will agree with that statement, Qidraw. There are certain crimes that should warrant someone to be unfit to hold public office. Of course, the rap sheet will come up in the election so the populace can decide for themselves but I can see some minor crimes that can be overlooked.

I've gotten two traffic tickets. Am I now ineligle to run for office? Should a person who is arrested during a peaceful protest for trespassing or some other passive crime give up their future in elected offices?

If a president pardons someone for a crime they didn't commit, should they not run for higher office?

Of course here in the US, having a criminal background does not disqualify anyone from running. Someone can run for office from behind bars.

"Of course there has been a ton of hypocracy from both sides, I'm not saying otherwise."

You just enjoy pointing it out on the other side.

"I hope you'll forgive me?"

I'll think about it...What they hey, why not? http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Bob S.

Trailscout

10-01-2005, 04:11 PM

Hooked,

Bennett revealed an inclination to think in racial terms rather than socioeconomic. For that he deserves criticism. His problem is born from lack of real-world exposure to America's poor. He is simply voicing his preconceptions. Traditionally Republicans have come from the ranks of the priviledged and are clueless about life outside their picket fences. But some Democrats are wealthy social engineers, do-gooders who paternalistically try to fix segments of society according to their idea of what works (John Kerry). Then again some Democrats are from the ranks of main street USA and are more in touch with the people. (John Edwards).

Ronald Reagan began as a populist Democrat and I think he lost touch somewhere along the way as he grew wealthy and separated from his roots.

Going back to the topic of "black crime", I've lived in Appalachia for a while and have seen the same social chaos among poor whites.

I dont mean to imply that throwing money at the problem is the only solution. Whether on an Indian reservation, the barrio, an Appalachian holler or in the black projects of the cities, money, jobs and education are only a step in the right direction. That will still not guarantee escape for families in these areas plagued by crime. There's a lot to be said for faith-based initiatives, community-based activism, such as Jesse Jackson's Operation Push, Big Brother, AIM (American Indian Movement) or Headstart.

NudeTopher

10-01-2005, 05:51 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Trailscout:

I dont mean to imply that throwing money at the problem is the only solution. Whether on an Indian reservation, the barrio, an Appalachian holler or in the black projects of the cities, money, jobs and education are only a step in the right direction. That will still not guarantee escape for families in these areas plagued by crime. There's a lot to be said for faith-based initiatives, community-based activism, such as Jesse Jackson's Operation Push, Big Brother, AIM (American Indian Movement) or Headstart. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
-----------------------------------------------
Either I'm reading your post incorrectly, or there is an inconsistancy. On the one hand you are stating that when the gov't spends money to break the cycle of poverty (on education, job training, and the creation of jobs) it's only "throwing money at the problem". Then, on the other hand when the dollars are funded through "faith based initiatives" you are more inclined to spend those same dollars.

What am I missing? At least in theory when it's the gov't running the programs there can be accountability. On the other, you are just giving the funds to a religious organization to do exactly the same work. By and large religious organizations are exempted from financial scrutinization. There would be less accountability not to mention that it could be argued that the gov't is supporting religious initiatives.

(And yes, your description of the political parties is pretty accurate. Historically the Republicans have been dominated by big business sorts. One of the reasons the Republicans might always be seen as more hawkish is that during times of war they tend to prosper via the industrial militiary complex.

Unfortunately, due to the cost of campaigns, it is virtually impossible for their to be candidates that are from the lower socio-economic classes or those not adept at professional fund raising. Think about it..to run for the job of town supervisor may take in excess of $500,000 yet the job only pays about $95,000/year. Where is the payback? Obviously the office holder is beholden to those that made the campaign contributions - in other words those "special interest groups.")

jon71

10-01-2005, 08:00 PM

I would say that education and job training and productive uses for govt. money while welfare is a matter of subsistance. Welfare only addresses todays needs while education and good jobs are a long term solution. Please understand I am not against welfare, my mom actually works for social services, I simply understand there is a limit to what it can do.

Trailscout

10-02-2005, 08:48 AM

Thanks, Jon! That's what I was trying to say. We should provide welfare to those who need it, but we must not congratulate ourselves on a job well done and then do nothing more.

A good friend of mine was once a single mom on welfare (and no I'm not the deadbeat dad!).
She used the help, got her G.E.D and is now in a successful sales career and lives in a beautiful home and has raised a family of fine kids.

Christopher, the additional help I refer to is not money, but mentoring. It can come from public or private sectors, but generally is most effective at the community level. In my friend's case, the mentoring came from her pastor and some wise relatives who guided her through some difficult times.

Qikdraw

10-02-2005, 03:26 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bob S.:
"Now thats simply a ridiculas statement Bob, and unworthy of you."

Maybe it was just a misunderstanding. I asked you: Should the Republican Party, or Democrat Party for that matter, screen everyone for potential of committing such crimes? to which you replied So yes there should be some form of screening going on.

I assumed you meant that there should be psychological screening to see who would be most apt to committ a crime. I guess there was something amiss in the translation. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The part I called ridiculas was the "pre-screening" as in Minority Report. Thats a ridiculas form of debate, to make a comment so out there as to make debating a point moronic. Thats what I say is beneith you.

What I mean is that people who have committed crimes should not be allowed in office. I don't mean parking tickets I mean white collar crime, and major criminal acts.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">"What I'm saying is that anyone with a criminal record, even ones "pardoned" at the last minute by a president, should not be allowed in office."

To a degree, I will agree with that statement, Qidraw. There are certain crimes that should warrant someone to be unfit to hold public office. Of course, the rap sheet will come up in the election so the populace can decide for themselves but I can see some minor crimes that can be overlooked. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Many public offices are held by appointment. Should we allow someone into an appointed postition who has had previous ethics violations, been charged with election fraud, and other white collar crimes and assorted nasties? How do we know that while in office they won't continue to do what they did before, but with public funds?

Frankly I don't want my taxpayer dollars to be wasted away by criminals.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I've gotten two traffic tickets. Am I now ineligle to run for office? Should a person who is arrested during a peaceful protest for trespassing or some other passive crime give up their future in elected offices? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well I think I answered this one didn't I?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If a president pardons someone for a crime they didn't commit, should they not run for higher office? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well if they are innocent of a crime, then they are fine, but presidents pardoning people who have commited a crime should not be happening. Such as Ford pardoning Nixon, as a quick example.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Of course here in the US, having a criminal background does not disqualify anyone from running. Someone can run for office from behind bars. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And that should stop. As I said why should we trust our taxpayer dollars to someone who has proven they can't abide by the laws of society?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">"Of course there has been a ton of hypocracy from both sides, I'm not saying otherwise."

You just enjoy pointing it out on the other side. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not really, but because Republicans can't admit that their party has problem politicians, or continue to make lame excuses, someone has to make sure the word is out. If Republicans can't do it, someone has to.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">"I hope you'll forgive me?"

I'll think about it...What they hey, why not? http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

*whew* The weight of the world is off my shoulders. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Qikdraw

Bob S.[/QUOTE]

NudeTopher

10-04-2005, 06:56 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Trailscout:

Christopher, the additional help I refer to is not money, but mentoring. It can come from public or private sectors, but generally is most effective at the community level. In my friend's case, the mentoring came from her pastor and some wise relatives who guided her through some difficult times. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I certainly don't have any problem with spending money on social service; particularly when in addition to money for survival there are funds and programs in place to enable the individual/family make positive economic and social changes in their life. I just have a problem with the funds being funneled into "faith based programs" instead of non-religious, non-denomination community based programs.

You may not like Islamic organizations getting a share of your social service tax dollars and similarly Jewish people and Islamics may not like their tax dollars being funneled into Christian, Catholic, or other dogma associated programs.

Let's help the community with community based groups and leave the dogma aside. Let's not support religious organizations with public money.

10-04-2005, 09:07 AM

Add to that by noting that Bush wants to let those faith based programs discriminate in their hiring so that they don't have to hire anyone that doesn't have their beliefs.

Bob S.

10-04-2005, 08:04 PM

"The part I called ridiculas was the "pre-screening" as in Minority Report."

Qikdraw, that was less of an argument and more of an exaggeration. You started the discussion about a man who was convicted of raping two underage teenage girls (maybe no force, but rape nonetheless). I asked whether screening should be made for the potential of such crimes. You seemed to agree with that. So I took that to mean that screening for potential criminals, pedophiles in particular, should occur.

"Many public offices are held by appointment. Should we allow someone into an appointed postition who has had previous ethics violations, been charged with election fraud, and other white collar crimes and assorted nasties?"

Yes. I think appointed officials should be held up to more scrutiny and should be model citizens. Elected officials will have to get past the populace and only they can decide to grant the person a second chance.

Bob S.