Originally Posted By gadzuux Saying that he's analogous to osama bin laden isn't questioning his patriotism?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Saying that he's analogous to osama bin laden isn't questioning his patriotism?> Are you sure they said he's analogous to Osama Bin Laden? I don't believe they did.
Originally Posted By tiggertoo <<If all hell breaks out and we are under attack who do you want to lead the fight?>> I know it's been a while since this comment was made, but to answer the question...someone who has actually been in a fight would be nice. I believe McCain would have been 100Xs better war-time President.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy McCain did a good job at getting caught as a POW and surviving. He is a great American but a horrible Senator and yes, he would be a horrible president. He doesn't have a chance of winning.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh "Horrible" is a little bit of an exageration. When my wife expressed worries that Senator Kerry could win in 2004, I said, "We survived Bill Clinton, we can survive John Kerry". While he's no Ronald Reagan, Senator McCain wouldn't be as bad as President Carter or President Clinton.
Originally Posted By ecdc "We survived Bill Clinton, we can survive John Kerry". Yeah, all that peace and prosperity must have been rough.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 ^^^^^^^ that's right all that peace like: world Trade Center bombing - U S S Cole attack Khobar Towers US Military center attack in Saudi Arabia U S Embassies blown up in Africa but most of the populace here was nice and cozy and safe as we turned the other cheek and let it continue.. it's not like doves and olive branches were around everywhere... and before anyone jumps on their anti Iraq war horse, I am not saying I like the way the war has been run....I am strickly saying let's not pretend the terrorists werent out there and testing us to see how far they could go....
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Yeah, all that peace and prosperity must have been rough.> What vbdad said about peace is true, and even some of that prosperity we thought we had turned out to be an illusion.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <Yeah, all that peace and prosperity must have been rough.> Exibit A on who out of touch and cluless the left is about reality. Just because Clinton decided to not fight back didn't mean we were not under attack. Liberals can get you peace...just let the enemy kick your ass without fighting back. Douglas, McCain would be a horrible president in my opinion. But not as bad as anybody the democrats are going to put up,
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Funny - I've been saying for six years now that "we'll survive George W. Bush." I think our nation will be in worse shape than when he started, but we'll survive him. That's the genius of our country. Despite the recent attempts to expand the powers of the executive, it's a lot more than just the presidency. So wherever you stand on the political spectrum, you can say "we'll survive... x" and so far at least, be right.
Originally Posted By ecdc ^^^^^^^I'm not a legal historian so I'm not familiar with conflicts between the executive and the judicial in the past. I know Roosevelt and his intense conflicts with the Four Horsemen generated plenty of heat. But my question is, has the demonization of the judiciary been this bad in the past? I'm deeply troubled by both the attacks on "activist judges" by an ingorant right and by the statement that the Supreme Court "stole" the Presidency for Bush. Both attacks on our judiciary seem like a dangerous precedent, but perhaps it's nothing really new.
Originally Posted By ecdc "ingorant" Oh sweet irony. Anybody see that episode of the Office where Dwight has to go give a speech and he's terrified because he misspells the word "failure" during the spelling bee? Misspelling ignorant isn't much better.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "But my question is, has the demonization of the judiciary been this bad in the past? I'm deeply troubled by both the attacks on "activist judges" by an ingorant right and by the statement that the Supreme Court "stole" the Presidency for Bush. Both attacks on our judiciary seem like a dangerous precedent, but perhaps it's nothing really new." FDR wanted to pack the Court in his time, but beyond that, nothing to the extremes we seeing now. More and more, the faction of the Republican party that's in charge does not tolerate an opposing viewpoint from anywhere, nor do they have much respect for members of the judiciary who hold contrary views. They'll laughably deny it all day long and point out Democrats whom they claim to be worse, but that's a strawman (another concept they've refined) and avoid the issue of taking responsibility for themselves. A system of checks and balances was incorporated into out system of government for a reason. The judiciary wasn't created to rubber stamp whatever Administration is in charge. One reason for its existence is to protect the populace from naked power grabs, such as has occurred in the last few years, ironically all done under the guise of the "war on terror." Se. Chuck Hagel just today was critical of his own party on Fox news. "First time I voted was in 1968 on top of a tank in the Mekong Delta. I voted a straight Republican ticket. The reason I did is because I believe in the Republican philosophy of governance. It's not what it used to be. I don't think it's the same today. Where is the fiscal responsibility of the party I joined in '68? Where is the international engagement of the party I joined, fair, free trade, individual responsibility, not building a bigger government, but building a smaller government? I think we've lost our way. And I think the Republicans are going to be in some jeopardy for that and will be held accountable. Now, the people of each state and of this country will make their own decisions." <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0" target="_blank">http://www.foxnews.com/story/0</a>,2933,209499,00.html Three more months.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <Where is the fiscal responsibility of the party I joined in '68? Where is the international engagement of the party I joined, fair, free trade, individual responsibility, not building a bigger government, but building a smaller government? I think we've lost our way. And I think the Republicans are going to be in some jeopardy for that and will be held accountable. Now, the people of each state and of this country will make their own decisions< while I agree on many things SPP -- unless the Deomcrats present a real platform and solid candidates this November and 2 years from now, I think the changes will be minimal. Many people are ready to change, but I can tell you wont do so unless there is more than: Hillary & Howard Dean & maybe Kerry again and the poster child - Barack..... and a platform of " we're not as bad as Bush "
Originally Posted By Dabob2 I think the Democrats are losing their chance to nationalize the election the way the GOP did in 1994. It would be the smart thing to do - little wonder they're not doing it. But I do still get the vibe that a lot of Democrats will be in the mood for a pragmatist heartland-type in '08. I'm gonna keep predicting one of the three governors (Warner, Bayh, Vilsack). And I think the GOP could do a lot worse than Hagel, BTW, who is someone I'd consider voting for. Is he running?
Originally Posted By Beaumandy .<< Despite the recent attempts to expand the powers of the executive, it's a lot more than just the presidency. So wherever you stand on the political spectrum >> When are the libs going to learn we are at war and that the president has the right to defend the country from attack. This BS about Bush expanding his power is pretty telling. It confirms the fact that the left does indeed push a "Terrorist Bill of rights". Every single thing the president does is done to protect the country from a massive terror attack... yet to the left and confused moderates, Bush is the bad guy for doing what he was elected to do. If you think what he is doing is illegal that's fine. It just shows more ignorance on your part. Legally all his programs check out just fine ( except to judges who campaigned for Jimmy Carter ). I find it amazing people would slam Bush for taking measures to save YOUR life. His programs have already stopped a number of terror attacks, attacks that would have happened if the libs had their way. 4000 people DIDN'T die last week on airliners because the UK and the USA used programs liberals are against.. maybe even tourture. I think living and surviving comes first. Want to die?? Vote democrat.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 << Despite the recent attempts to expand the powers of the executive, it's a lot more than just the presidency. So wherever you stand on the political spectrum >> <When are the libs going to learn we are at war and that the president has the right to defend the country from attack. > The president's rights and powers are enumerated in the constitution. They are not what he says they are. It's an open question as to whether he overreached. So much is still being kept secret that it's hard to say for sure - it does look that way, though. <This BS about Bush expanding his power is pretty telling. It confirms the fact that the left does indeed push a "Terrorist Bill of rights".> Still shrinking from the challenge to find ANYONE of consequence arguing for anything like a "terrorist bill of rights?" Of course. So you'll just mindlessly - and I do mean mindlessly - parrot what Rush tells you. Again. You should also be concerned with an executive overreaching its bounds - we won't always have a Republican in the white house. Even if you trust Bush 100% to never - but never! - use this power and the fact that he'd have no oversight for anything but going after bad guys, what would prevent a president Hillary from using these powers to, say, bug pro-life groups? Or the RNC? If she doesn't have to get a warrant, how could anybody know? That's the point. It's too much power for ANY executive to have, with no oversight.
