I dont get it..how can anyone vote republican (er neo-con)??

D

deleted15807

Guest
Pile on top of that, he CUTS taxes... during a WAR, you have to wonder... is Bush intentionally sabatoging America? What fucking leader... IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD....
...has EVER cut taxes and dramatically increased domestic spending during a war?
EVER?
The stupid one, that's who.

Indeed for all the talk about Obama's patriotism by McCain one has to wonder if the Bush cabal was actually out to put the country on a course of certain structural failure. It's not any secret that if projections hold true of planned government expenses and expected government revenue that the government could become fiscally unstable in the next 20 years. But reality(a sea of red ink) and philosophy(low taxes) never seem to collide in BushWorld or neo-con world. The two work fine together, just like being pro-life and pro-war. The two ideas can exist in the same space.

There is a room at the Department of Treasure Bureau of Public Debt that operates 24 hours a day much like a fire department were the US government sells bonds. It is here were the realities of US spending vs US revenue hits home. This hushed room must function constantly to keep borrowed money flowing into the US treasury. Worldwide buyers of US bonds all meet electronically here to buy US debt. Rather sad actually to see, imagine a room in your house whose sole function is to link you with lenders so that you can pay your bills and it operates constantly. It must operate constantly or else your entire home collapses.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

SpeedoGuy

Sexy Member
Joined
May 18, 2004
Posts
4,166
Media
7
Likes
41
Points
258
Age
60
Location
Pacific Northwest, USA
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
Indeed for all the talk about Obama's patriotism by McCain one has to wonder if the Bush cabal was actually out to put the country on a course of certain structural failure.

I wonder about this as well.

Tax cuts, overspending on military adventurism and outright neglect can gradually stangle social programs into oblivion that might be otherwise politically difficult to abolish through a simple straight up or down vote.

Hate New Deal social programs? Then let them whither by neglecting them and gradually allowing their funding to fall behind inflation.
 

Qua

Legendary Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2007
Posts
1,604
Media
63
Likes
1,268
Points
583
Location
Boston (Massachusetts, United States)
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
Well, to address the OP, for MANY MANY people abortion is an absolutely non-negotiable. Say what you will about taxes, false promises, compromising other issues etc, but it's very very hard to vote for a party if you believe that it endorses the murder of children. I know you said not to get into it, but it's a decent answer to your question.

The Republican party is in no way Catholic; Catholic social teachings are to the left of most Democrats when issues of sex and "preservation of life" are not concerned, but the abortion issue keeps most Catholics firmly under the Repubs thumbs. That's why it was so essential for McCain to pick an obviously anti-abortion VP; if that non-negotiable factor was no longer a difference between the tickets and Catholics were resigned to vote for a pro abortion candidate the Repubs may well lose the Catholic (as well as other Christian) vote by a fair margin, which is essential in such a high-stakes race. Repubs maintain an illusion of being the party of Christianity solely on their abortion stance, as it is a seminal issue for many voters.
 

SilverTrain

Legendary Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Posts
4,623
Media
82
Likes
1,328
Points
333
Location
USA
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
And the fact that the repubs use the issue purely for their political gain, without any devotion to the actual "cause" is one of the most cynical aspects to an incredibly cynical platform.

The fact that many "pro-life voters" don't see that the repub stance is a purely hollow grab for votes is somewhat baffling to me.
 

radicaldick

Experimental Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2006
Posts
524
Media
0
Likes
10
Points
163
Gender
Male
Well, to address the OP, for MANY MANY people abortion is an absolutely non-negotiable. Say what you will about taxes, false promises, compromising other issues etc, but it's very very hard to vote for a party if you believe that it endorses the murder of children. I know you said not to get into it, but it's a decent answer to your question.

The Republican party is in no way Catholic; Catholic social teachings are to the left of most Democrats when issues of sex and "preservation of life" are not concerned, but the abortion issue keeps most Catholics firmly under the Repubs thumbs. That's why it was so essential for McCain to pick an obviously anti-abortion VP; if that non-negotiable factor was no longer a difference between the tickets and Catholics were resigned to vote for a pro abortion candidate the Repubs may well lose the Catholic (as well as other Christian) vote by a fair margin, which is essential in such a high-stakes race. Repubs maintain an illusion of being the party of Christianity solely on their abortion stance, as it is a seminal issue for many voters.

Good points...and i see it in a more pragmatic way..its a biological issue, not a religious one...and from that perspective abortion is still termination of life..no arguing that. But politically, this is a hollow hot-button issue- it is really quite short sighted and unproductive and frankly silly to vote for a candidate or party based solely on something like abortion, because the reality is it will never change.
 

slurper_la

Superior Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Posts
5,878
Media
9
Likes
3,761
Points
333
Location
Los Angeles (California, United States)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
the neo-con agenda is about corporate world domination. period, the end.

their only patriotism is to the all mighty dollar and they are positioned to gain on the global economy and are doing so in absurd numbers.

the emerging asian markets; the growth of China and India; the investments in production and service centers in those countries

why would they care about the USA markets when China and India represent 2/5ths of the global population and are becoming socially and economically explosive?

it is just so pathetic that so many people in the US are so abysmally ignorant of world affairs and can't see the writing on the wall. just keep going along bitching and moaning about abortion and gay marriage and terrorism and national security, blah, blah, blah

as the old saying goes..."those ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it"
 
D

deleted15807

Guest
The worldwide hegemony effort is all documented here Statement of Principles. The website founding principles are from neo-con Bill Kristol.

-[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next. [/FONT]
 

B_New End

Experimental Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2007
Posts
2,970
Media
0
Likes
20
Points
183
Location
WA
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Its so funny, you meantion Project for a New American Century to some ignormouses, and they think you are talking conspiracy...

..when you can look up these people's letters online on their website.

I like the one in 1998, urging Clinton to attack Iraq, signed by many, famous neocons. Letter to President Clinton on Iraq

"[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]."


fucking traitors.
[/FONT]
 
D

deleted15807

Guest
Its so funny, you meantion Project for a New American Century to some ignormouses, and they think you are talking conspiracy...

..when you can look up these people's letters online on their website.

I like the one in 1998, urging Clinton to attack Iraq, signed by many, famous neocons. Letter to President Clinton on Iraq

"[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]."


fucking traitors.
[/FONT]

EXACTLY!!!

If you look at the signers from 1998 it's clear these people wanted war with Iraq for a long time and with Bush's election and 9/11 it was ALL made possible. And these signers were in the upper echelons of the Bush Administration. All they needed to do was simply reverse engineer the need to invade Iraq and they did it with the public's 85%+ approval of the war.

Indeed the are traitors. And today they're all walking free living the life. They would certainly like to add Iran to their list of spectacular failures. They'll save that for the McCain Administration.


All of them are fucking evil:

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitage William J. Bennett[/FONT]​
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W. Rodman[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey Robert B. Zoellick[/FONT]
 

jason_els

<img border="0" src="/images/badges/gold_member.gi
Joined
Dec 16, 2004
Posts
10,228
Media
0
Likes
163
Points
193
Location
Warwick, NY, USA
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
EXACTLY!!!

If you look at the signers from 1998 it's clear these people wanted war with Iraq for a long time and with Bush's election and 9/11 it was ALL made possible. And these signers were in the upper echelons of the Bush Administration. All they needed to do was simply reverse engineer the need to invade Iraq and they did it with the public's 85%+ approval of the war.

Indeed the are traitors. And today they're all walking free living the life. They would certainly like to add Iran to their list of spectacular failures. They'll save that for the McCain Administration.


All of them are fucking evil:

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitage William J. Bennett[/FONT]​
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W. Rodman[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey Robert B. Zoellick[/FONT]

More telling is looking at the funding sources. As a not-for-profit, it legally had to disclose its funding and when you look at the names, they're all connected to oil and defense. Follow the money!
 
D

deleted15807

Guest
More telling is looking at the funding sources. As a not-for-profit, it legally had to disclose its funding and when you look at the names, they're all connected to oil and defense. Follow the money!

And thanks to the Supreme Court we will never know what was discussed and decided at the still secret Cheney Energy Task Force.


If you follow the money for all those conservative think tanks it all leads back back to very very wealthy donors and industry. It's really an ugly picture when you look at it. These donors usually through a myriad of links own/operate various pieces of the media and actually frame and control what the electorate sees. An informed electorate seems to have become the latest victim to media consolidation.
 

jason_els

<img border="0" src="/images/badges/gold_member.gi
Joined
Dec 16, 2004
Posts
10,228
Media
0
Likes
163
Points
193
Location
Warwick, NY, USA
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male

And thanks to the Supreme Court we will never know what was discussed and decided at the still secret Cheney Energy Task Force.


If you follow the money for all those conservative think tanks it all leads back back to very very wealthy donors and industry. It's really an ugly picture when you look at it. These donors usually through a myriad of links own/operate various pieces of the media and actually frame and control what the electorate sees. An informed electorate seems to have become the latest victim to media consolidation.

Agree 100%. Big media news in this country has become a dangerous tool. The fourth estate has been purchased by the second estate and filled with amusement parks and fast food restaurants to distract the third estate.

If we lose internet neutrality then the takeover will be complete.
 

SilverTrain

Legendary Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Posts
4,623
Media
82
Likes
1,328
Points
333
Location
USA
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
Typical liberals. Trying to doctor up your conspiracy theories. Everyone knows the mainstream liberal media pushes the liberal agenda each and every day. Blame the liberals for any media shenanigans.*


:biggrin1::biggrin1::biggrin1::biggrin1::biggrin1::biggrin1::biggrin1:



* I don't think I heard this word-for-word on Limbaugh. But I might have.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ArtInTheHumanBody

tonyp1222

Experimental Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2007
Posts
26
Media
0
Likes
2
Points
86
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Well, to address the OP, for MANY MANY people abortion is an absolutely non-negotiable. Say what you will about taxes, false promises, compromising other issues etc, but it's very very hard to vote for a party if you believe that it endorses the murder of children. I know you said not to get into it, but it's a decent answer to your question.

The Republican party is in no way Catholic; Catholic social teachings are to the left of most Democrats when issues of sex and "preservation of life" are not concerned, but the abortion issue keeps most Catholics firmly under the Repubs thumbs. That's why it was so essential for McCain to pick an obviously anti-abortion VP; if that non-negotiable factor was no longer a difference between the tickets and Catholics were resigned to vote for a pro abortion candidate the Repubs may well lose the Catholic (as well as other Christian) vote by a fair margin, which is essential in such a high-stakes race. Repubs maintain an illusion of being the party of Christianity solely on their abortion stance, as it is a seminal issue for many voters.

While I agree that abortion is termination of life, it is short-sighted to vote strictly on that basis. The law on abortion will never, ever change, and if it did, we would see a seedy black market of back-alley abortions pop up that not only end up killing the child, but endangering the lives of the mother.
 

SpeedoGuy

Sexy Member
Joined
May 18, 2004
Posts
4,166
Media
7
Likes
41
Points
258
Age
60
Location
Pacific Northwest, USA
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
The law on abortion will never, ever change, and if it did, we would see a seedy black market of back-alley abortions pop up that not only end up killing the child, but endangering the lives of the mother.

I don't think the law will change either, else it already would have.

The GOP has really done very little except talk about opposing abortion in the last generation. The anti-government/low taxes Republicans are only too happy to hoodwink the anti-abortion Republicans into serving as sources of votes and funding that serve the neo-con agenda. The gullible anti-abortion Repubs keep following that carrot wherever it leads them.....
 

jason_els

<img border="0" src="/images/badges/gold_member.gi
Joined
Dec 16, 2004
Posts
10,228
Media
0
Likes
163
Points
193
Location
Warwick, NY, USA
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
I don't think the law will change either, else it already would have.

The GOP has really done very little except talk about opposing abortion in the last generation. The anti-government/low taxes Republicans are only too happy to hoodwink the anti-abortion Republicans into serving as sources of votes and funding that serve the neo-con agenda. The gullible anti-abortion Repubs keep following that carrot wherever it leads them.....

5-4 rulings are why it hasn't changed. The justices on the left are older than those that usually vote right. Stevens is 88.

If anything, since Roe v. Wade, the right to abortion has become more restricted directly by the action of the Supreme Court:

[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]Webster: In Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 492 U.S. 490 (1989), the Supreme Court declared in a 5:4 decision that a Missouri law was constitutional. It stated that: [/FONT][FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]Human life began at conception,[/FONT] [FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]That Missouri state property could not be used to conduct abortions, and[/FONT] [FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]A fetal viability assessment could be required before late term abortions are performed.

[/FONT][FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]Akron Center: In Ohio v Akron Ctr. for Reproductive Health, 497 U.S. 502 (1990), the Court ruled 6:3 that a state could require a parent or guardian to be notified before an under-aged woman received an abortion. However, a provision must be in place for a judge to by-pass this requirement if he/she regards it to be in the best interest of the woman.

[/FONT][FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]Casey: InPlanned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), the court ruled 5:4 that Pennsylvania could require: [/FONT][FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]A 24 hour waiting period before an abortion is performed.[/FONT] [FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]That the woman give her informed consent to the abortion.[/FONT] [FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]That parent or guardian be notified before an abortion on a woman who has not reached her 18th birthday.[/FONT]

So far, 16 states still have anti-abortion laws on the books which would immediately return to effect should Roe v. Wade be overturned.

As I see it, two things could happen. The first is that the court decides that abortion is the province of the states and thus states can then enact whatever abortion legislation they want. There are no federal laws guaranteeing abortion, only the Roe v. Wade decision which could be overturned by the very court which ruled in its favor. The Supreme Court does that sometimes. All it takes are a majority of justices. Which party controls congress doesn't matter at all.

The other thing that could happen is that Roe v. Wade is just simply overturned outright. Alito himself has argued in court that abortion is not a right under the constitution. In other words, don't think he won't do it if a case arises where it could happen.
 
Last edited:

Phil Ayesho

Superior Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2008
Posts
6,189
Media
0
Likes
2,792
Points
333
Location
San Diego
Sexuality
69% Straight, 31% Gay
Gender
Male
I am old enough to remember when Abortion was illegal...

Guess what?

It had no effect.
It did not stop abortions.
My own family had not the slightest difficulty arranging for a safe, medically supervised, illegal abortion, right in the comfort of our own home.

The only difference is that poor people will have less access to safe practice.
ANd that it will be driven underground, into a cash economy.



THe people who are Against abortion are NOT pro- life... outlawing will not stop abortion...
All outlawing it does is empower the government to incarcerate people for it.

The religious zealots and fascist fuckwads who oppose abortion have only ONE interest... they want people who engage in sex to have to SUFFER CONSEQUENCES.

And that is ALL they are interested in... these same dipshits oppose sex education, oppose access to birth control...
Oppose every single measure that migfht ACTUALLY result in fewer unwanted pregnancies.

They are not pro-life... they are anti-sex.

And the greatest focus of their righteous retribution is young women.

Pro-life is the position of the misogynist, the chauvanist, the angry and bitter father who never got laid in high school.


Republicans... they want to keep the public's nose out of their business dealings... and they want to shove their nose into the public's private dealings.

They don't give a DAMN about babies... all they are interested in is condemnation, judgement, and punishment.

They are the inquisition.
 

SpeedoGuy

Sexy Member
Joined
May 18, 2004
Posts
4,166
Media
7
Likes
41
Points
258
Age
60
Location
Pacific Northwest, USA
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
The other thing that could happen is that Roe v. Wade is just simply overturned outright. Alito himself has argued in court that abortion is not a right under the constitution. In other words, don't think he won't do it if a case arises where it could happen.


Points well taken, jason. I can't deny any of the points you made and I thank you for a well thought out post.

Still, I can't help but be a bit skeptical given that I've been warned for decades that abortion rights are dangling on the very precipice of oblivion and yet the axe never actually seems to fall.
 

D_Davy_Downspout

Account Disabled
Joined
Dec 5, 2004
Posts
1,136
Media
0
Likes
18
Points
183
Points well taken, jason. I can't deny any of the points you made and I thank you for a well thought out post.

Still, I can't help but be a bit skeptical given that I've been warned for decades that abortion rights are dangling on the very precipice of oblivion and yet the axe never actually seems to fall.


Roe V. Wade only says that you can get an abortion in every state in the country. A strict interpretation of the constitution might agree that the government doesn't have the power to say this, but the result would just be some states can do it, some can't, based on what each votes for.

If the decision was overturned, you could still legally get one, you just might have to travel.
 

jason_els

<img border="0" src="/images/badges/gold_member.gi
Joined
Dec 16, 2004
Posts
10,228
Media
0
Likes
163
Points
193
Location
Warwick, NY, USA
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Points well taken, jason. I can't deny any of the points you made and I thank you for a well thought out post.

Still, I can't help but be a bit skeptical given that I've been warned for decades that abortion rights are dangling on the very precipice of oblivion and yet the axe never actually seems to fall.

Thank you! :smile:

If Roe v. Wade hasn't fallen, I would say it's because the court has not had a conservative majority since Roe v. Wade was decided.

Given the statistics for all of this, the next President will likely have to make four nominations to the court within the next eight years. That means McCain will create an 8-1 majority of conservatives while Obama could create a 6-3 majority for liberals. Alito and Roberts aren't going anywhere as they're only in their 50s, but Ginsburg is 75 and Stevens is 88. The key is Stevens. If he leaves the court for any reason, then the majority will sway in favor of the Scalia/Roberts/Alito/Thomas block and the court will be conservative in true majority unless one of them goes renegade like (supposedly) O'Connor and Souter did. I don't think any of those four have proven themselves to be closet liberals or even centrists and compared to their comrades, they're relatively young.
 
Last edited: