stuckincincy Posted September 7, 2004 Share Posted September 7, 2004 Yep. 20667[/snapback] So he was following the Clinton Adm's playbook? http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/Legislation/ILA.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted September 7, 2004 Author Share Posted September 7, 2004 So he was following the Clinton Adm's playbook? http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/Legislation/ILA.htm 20672[/snapback] For what it is worth, I am a Reagan Republican and am not a big fan of Clinton. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted September 7, 2004 Share Posted September 7, 2004 For what it is worth, I am a Reagan Republican and am not a big fan of Clinton. 20743[/snapback] OK. But are you an opponent of Bush and a supporter of Kerry? IIRC, Kerry supported Clinton. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted September 7, 2004 Author Share Posted September 7, 2004 OK. But are you an opponent of Bush and a supporter of Kerry? IIRC, Kerry supported Clinton. 20790[/snapback] As a Reagan Republican, I am not happy with Bush. I had high hopes for him during the first year of his presidency. I was all for the war in Afghanistan, but have huge problems with the war in Iraq (the way we went about it as well as the timing of it and the fact that there was no imminent necessity for it). I also have problems with the fact that we have squandered all of the goodwill we had throughout the world after 9/11. I also have problems with the huge deficit we have because of the spending that both parties are responsible for as well as the billions of dollars that we are going to have to spend on Iraq. I have this feeling that, if Bush is re-elected, Iraq is just the beginning if he chooses to continue to let the neocons dominate our foreign policy. Don't be surprised if we invade Syria and/or Iran next. They are both on the neocon's hit list. I have problems with Kerry as well. His problems have been on display for much of the past month. The guy still cannot clearly articulate what he would have done and what he would do. What I do in the election will be determined by the debates and what happens in the next 50+ days. It would take a miracle for me to vote for Bush. If it looked like he would get rid of some of the chickenhawks in the Pentagon (e.g., the neocons), I could be brought around. Otherwise, it is a hobson's choice of not voting or voting for ABB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted September 7, 2004 Share Posted September 7, 2004 I'm sorry, but I am very suspicious of those who say "I am a Republican, but". That was published a while ago in a book as a strategy to use when calling a radio show, talking to the press, responding on the I-net etc. Lenin 101. I apoligize if I am insulting you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted September 7, 2004 Author Share Posted September 7, 2004 I'm sorry, but I am very suspicious of those who say "I am a Republican, but". That was published a while ago in a book as a strategy to use when calling a radio show, talking to the press, responding on the I-net etc. Lenin 101. I apoligize if I am insulting you. 20851[/snapback] You don't know me so I will not take it as an insult. I am a card carrying Republican who became a Republican in college because of Ronald Reagan and Milton Friedman. If you do not believe me and are willing to donate some money to a charity of my choice, I can e-mail you a copy of my voter registration card. Being a conservative, however, does not mean that I have to buy into the neoconservative's vision of the world. As you may know, there is a huge debate going on in this country between paleo and neo conservatives. Take a look at Pat Buchanen's recent book. I really believe that the Bush residency has been coopted by the neoconservative agenda. He did not run on this, but has adopted it without question. While I agree with lowering taxes, I have problems with spending $3 billion on promoting marriage in this country just to placate the certain elements of the party for example. Bush inherited a huge surplus. We now have a huge deficit in part because of Iraq. I would have preferred if that money had been spent more wisely (if we were going to spend it all). Further, I wish that Bush 43 had the diplomatic skills of his father who built a real coalition and, as a result, we only had to pay 10% of the cost of the first Gulf War rather than practically all of the costs of this war. These are my opinions. I also believe that the Iraq war has the potential of undermining the domestic agenda that us supply side conservatives like about this presidency so far. Just my two cents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted September 7, 2004 Share Posted September 7, 2004 A good 2 cents, Peter. One thing, though - the surplus. That was predicated on (and winked upon by Rep's and Dem's alike) that the GNP would continue to show 4% growth forever, that there would be no increased spending by Congress. It was nothing but feel-good-reelect me pap IMO. But the Clinton plan fell apart in early 2000, as the huge PE ratios, the sins that were enabled by the 1993 administration decision to allow accounting firms to also be financial advisors gave rise to the likes of Enron, Global Crossing, World Com and so forth finally fell as another example of the Emperor's Clothes. But the economy survives. You are a thoughtful man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted September 8, 2004 Share Posted September 8, 2004 So he was following the Clinton Adm's playbook? http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/Legislation/ILA.htm 20672[/snapback] That bill does NOT state that we shall use any military forces to go in and remove Saddam; it merely says that we will AID the democratic groups who WANT to remove Saddam. I can't remember the last time the United States had DIRECT INVOLVEMENT in removing a leader with our forces. Castro was with US trained anti-Castro guerillas, so that is out... Honestly, I can't remember... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted September 8, 2004 Share Posted September 8, 2004 That bill does NOT state that we shall use any military forces to go in and remove Saddam; it merely says that we will AID the democratic groups who WANT to remove Saddam. I can't remember the last time the United States had DIRECT INVOLVEMENT in removing a leader with our forces. Castro was with US trained anti-Castro guerillas, so that is out... Honestly, I can't remember... 21491[/snapback] Hello Panama, Noriega, ring a bell??????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted September 8, 2004 Share Posted September 8, 2004 Hello Panama, Noriega, ring a bell??????? 21620[/snapback] Did you hear the microwave? The hot pockets are done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted September 8, 2004 Share Posted September 8, 2004 Did you hear the microwave? The hot pockets are done. 21662[/snapback] Don't eat them myself. Was my response too long to understand? I seek your guidance to ensure I don't over stimulate our collegues . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted September 8, 2004 Share Posted September 8, 2004 Did you hear the microwave? The hot pockets are done. 21662[/snapback] What does that say for me?... I like mine slightly undercooked... Are you guys actually taking a stance against Yahooism? Go figure . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted September 8, 2004 Share Posted September 8, 2004 Hello Panama, Noriega, ring a bell??????? 21620[/snapback] Ohh yeah, that's right... I forgot about that; silly me! I am human. Damn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted September 8, 2004 Share Posted September 8, 2004 That bill does NOT state that we shall use any military forces to go in and remove Saddam; it merely says that we will AID the democratic groups who WANT to remove Saddam. I can't remember the last time the United States had DIRECT INVOLVEMENT in removing a leader with our forces. Castro was with US trained anti-Castro guerillas, so that is out... Honestly, I can't remember... 21491[/snapback] It seemed to have implication. Yes? Or was it just another exercise in what the meaning of "is", is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts