1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Political War

Discussion in 'Chit Chat' started by Eligh, Jul 2, 2005.

  1. Eligh

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2005
    Messages:
    37
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    I live in North-East Oklahoma
    Recently I have been doing research on both the Reagan and Bush adminitration. And in the early stages of the Reagan Administration, our so called "Greatest American" Ronald Reagan, the 39th president of the United States, had split our masses. Reagan, who was for cutting off the welfare foundations and social work, had put that money into the richs' pockets. Reagan taxed the middle class and for anybody that would make 90g's a year or over, they would get the tax cut. Now, who do you think needs that cut more? I think it sould be obvious. Reagan, probably our most conservative president had set the path for his buddy, Goerge H. Bush, to get elected to presidential office. The only reason Why Clinton had won the 1992 election is because of H. Ross Pero. Because of him he split the republicans and Clinton recived the majorty votes. Now, Republicans own all news broadcast stations, except PBS. Although they have been trying to get PBS for the past 20 years, they havent. Some might think that Fox is an independent News Broadcastor, but Fox is the most conservative out of them all. When a BlackHawk Helicopter had killed 18+ people, Fox was showing a high speed car chase in my state. I live in Oklahoma, and instead of being mad at the people here, you need to guide them. Oklahoma, along with Kansas, The Dakotas, and other midwestern states need guidence. People out here are living in a mobile home and have a Bush/Cheney sign out in their front lawn. Now if you ask me that makes absoulutely no sence. Bush is for increasing taxes, and for keepig the rich even more rich. Republicans, if you look it up in the dictionary( well certain ones at least ) would give you the basic information about them, they are for big coorperate buisnesses, and for crushing the little man. Democrats are Human rights activists, and are for privately owned buisnesses. Even though we must have both to keep our country strong, Republicans are leading churches couruption. Today, people worship a figure, the Jesus I was taught about loved everybody, but he didnt acociate with the religious leaders, he sat and socialized with people that were sick, prostitutes, people of lower class scociety. I am not saying Jesus slept with the prostitutes, but I am saying that he had affiliated with them, simply because they werent the corrupt ones. Today, we have criminal saints, Tammy Fey and her husband, look at them, they are in Jail, or at least were. They were caught spending the money that they rasied for their church on things for your household and personal objects. And another thing, lately alot of Republicans have been getting caught in prostitution, pornagraphy, and even gay relation stings. It goes to show you that they are going to do anything to get what they want, and one thing that they want is for us, the homosexuals, to loose all rights. Even though republicans are really gay deep down inside, they want america to be like a pedistal of christianity. But all I can say is if there are any Log Cabin Republicans reading this, than you should take this in. You arent evil, so vote democraticly. Liberals will lead us to happiness that we are supposted to have as a right in our constitution. But anyway, I will stop now before I blow a gasget, and let you all think about what kind of war we are going into. Just know, you cant trust the Telivision, you have to use search ingines on these kind of things, look up all the juicey stuff and help me knock these conservatives on their ass.
     
  2. nisomer

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2005
    Messages:
    561
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    MN
    Yes, and might I add that it is Reagan's fault that we are in this social security mess, because of his administration using all that money to fund his so called "STAR WARS" project, and that is why social security is broke.
     
  3. hawkeye

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Messages:
    263
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Wisconsin
    woa, were you hired by democrats?
    this is absolutely amazing, you brought a total blacklight on the republicans, and just sainted the democrats. There is corruption everywhere you look. are you saying that democrats aren't corrupt? are you crazy? Just about every polititian everywhere is corrupt. And where did you see in the dictionary that republicans are for "crushing the littleman"? "Republicans are leading churches couruption", i almost want to laugh. Of course there is a political war, we have two major political parties in the US, do you think that one is going to play nice and let the other win an election?

    I hereby declare that i will no longer reply to any political posts not related to being gay.
     
  4. goratrix

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2005
    Messages:
    519
    Likes Received:
    0
    So... you think bush is gay??? (so we can keep you in the conversation :icon_wink )
     
  5. joeyconnick

    joeyconnick Guest

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2005
    Messages:
    3,069
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Toronto, ON
    Gender:
    Male
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    While I'm definitely no fan of the US Republicans, I'm not sure it's quite so black and white as you make it out to be. That being said, Reagan was awful, if only for the fact that his administration neglected to mount (some might say actively resisted mounting) a strong response to the AIDS crisis when it emerged in the 1980s. The extent of the ravaging of HIV and AIDS could have been curtailed immensely if the Reagan administration had allowed federal funds and resources to be used to study it.

    And I've never really understood the whole notion of Log Cabin Republicans, or black Republicans for that matter. I understand that there are gay people and black people who are conservative but it's become crystal clear in the last 20 years that the Republican party wants nothing more than to keep all minorities "in their place" as second-class citizens with no protections against the oppression that minority populations face. It seems to me that the ability to be free from discrimination and to live safely is a far more important basic right than small government (which has not exactly happened under the Bush Jr. administration anyway), lower taxes, less government interference, the criminalisation of abortion, and a host of other "classic" Republican values/issues. Like lower taxes and states rights are not gonna help you any if you lose your job and get evicted because you're gay.

    I think the current Republican party has no real interest in diversity because it means power-sharing and that doesn't seem to be of any importance to the current people in power in the organisation. That being said, I think a lot of problems with the Republican party is that it is currently (over)run by fundamentalist whackjobs who like maintaining power through fear and division. I would have a lot more respect for conservative Americans if the only viable vehicle for them to express their political views wasn't solely the Republican party. The 2-party system in the States sucks quite harshly.

    All that being said, I'm not naive enough to think that the Democrats are saintly. I just appreciate that they at least say they're interested in equality and respect. It seems to me the ideals of the Democratic party are much more noble, although I realise that doesn't mean Democratic polititians are any less corrupt. They do seem to be a lot less beholden to corporate interests, however, which strikes me as a very good thing.
     
  6. Eligh

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2005
    Messages:
    37
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    I live in North-East Oklahoma
    Im not saying that democrats arent corrupt, I am just saying that in my own oppinion( witch is always voiced ), that republicans are the modern day evil. You see more and more stings on republicans now, and people still dont give a sh*t. It is outrageous. I think people need to realize that Reagan is a horrible man. He divided america more than it already was. And yes, I too agree that Reagan should take some of the blame on the AIDS epidemic, just because he refused to support funding and help when it first came out. And another thing is, being a minority and voting republican is a living statement of OXYMORON. Republicans are unnacepting, and unkind to anyone but themselves. So all I can say is that anybody here who would dare to vote republican is an idiot. If you want to be liberated and happy, then you have to go DEM, and thats all there is to it.
     
  7. joeyconnick

    joeyconnick Guest

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2005
    Messages:
    3,069
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Toronto, ON
    Gender:
    Male
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    Well, however much you believe that to be true, it won't win you many arguments with Republicans, mainly because most people don't take kindly to being called idiots, whatever their political proclivities. So if your goal is to piss a lot of people off, you'll succeed admirably. If you instead want to change some minds, you'll need to find a different approach.
     
  8. nisomer

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2005
    Messages:
    561
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    MN
    Lets just say you can never win an argument with Republicans. But then again, same goes for Demecrats. I mean seriously look at the state of Minnesota, we are in a fricken shut down right now because our stupid senators can't make up their damn minds on basic state issues! And we are losing millions of dollars because of that! And I can't get my driver's license because of that!! :angry:
     
  9. hawkeye

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Messages:
    263
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Wisconsin
    first of all, for the heck of it, i'm going to say that bush is gay and in extreeme denial. but i guess i dont even need that statement because this does now have to do with gay marriage and stuff. First of all, Eligh, if i traced the conversation correctly, you stated that republicans are bad because they try to change the public's views and they only support rich people. Then, you stated that (the reader) is not evil, so they should vote democrat. In your latest post, you charged that gays and blacks should not vote republican because republicans try to belittle them. I am so republican not because i am anti gay(lol) or anti-minority, I am mostly republican because of other things. It is mostly the security policy that I am a supporter of. I do believe that gay marriage and equality of minorities and the majority is good, but I dont believe either is worth it if we don't have a safe country/world.

    About the 2 party system: it does suck. I hate parties alltogether. I think polititians should state word for word what their standpoint is on all issues, rather than allowing people to assume they stand with one of the 2 groups. Parties basicly embody corruption fundamentaly! They have the intent to control everything. The only party that I would consider is the government, as a group of individualy thinking people.
     
  10. joeyconnick

    joeyconnick Guest

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2005
    Messages:
    3,069
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Toronto, ON
    Gender:
    Male
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    I've never really understood that argument, that the Democrats can't keep the US safe. I mean, what kind of Presidents did the US have during WWI and WWII? And on whose watch did 9/11 happen?

    Granted, a Republican was the guy to get you guys out of 'Nam finally, but I've never seen any compelling evidence that leads me to believe either party is better or worse when it comes to national defence.

    However, the current Republican "security" policies seem more to me about stripping Americans of constitutionally-enshrined rights (and trying to bully other countries into doing the same thing, e.g. insistence that Canadians travelling to the US all have passports, and use this or that security technology, etc.), and thereby increasing the power of government over the people, which contradicts their stated goal of less government interference in people's lives. And what about Bush's free speech "zones?"

    It's always seemed to me that the Republicans' starting point is fear, and that they are much more willing to use fear to maintain and consolidate power. Now that's certainly one of the easiest ways to govern, and efficient, but it's not exactly what I'd call noble or something I could vote for.

    I'm always struck by a huge banner I saw in SF shortly after 9/11, atop the famous City Lights bookstore, which stated "Dissent is not unAmerican."

    [And on a side note, I really, really don't want Bush to be gay. The straight people can keep that smirking, incoherent alcoholic for their own.]
     
  11. nisomer

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2005
    Messages:
    561
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    MN
    Yeah, things like the Patriot Act. But really, in times of crisis, the country will do anything to make our nation seem more "secure". That is why during WW2, the Japanese were sent to internment camps. That is why after 9/11 the Patriot Act was allowed to pass so easily.

    And did anyone hear about the U.S. Government trying to control the internet??! What the hell is this. I remember seeing an article on gay.com that something about it being taken down by the US governement. What ever happend to free speech?

    Oh and umm, what are Bush's free speech zones? Never heard of em...

    Yes and once again, like I said, people will agree with anything to help fight their fears. That is why the Patriot Act was passed so easily. During times of crisis, the thing that people worry about the most is their safety. In times of crisis, people look to their leader. Who was our leader during 9/11? George Bush. We all followed George Bush. And if any of you remember, his approval ratings during the 9/11 times were pretty high, and even I thought he was doing a good job. But then again, all we were worried about was our safety. We thought he was doing a good job because he was saying all these things and passing all these laws that seemed like they were protecting us. But the thing we didn't look at, were our civil liberties.

    I hate to bring this up, but Star Wars Episode 3 is a great example of this. The galaxy is under civil war, and during the war the senate is voting more "emergency powers" to the Chancellor. (Like I said, time of crisis, people look to their leader for help.) Then at the end of the movie, the Chancellor starts talking to the Senate about how the Jedi tried to overthrow the Republic, then he says "The remaining Jedi will be hunted down and defeated." And there is applause all over the Senate. (Much like Bush talking about terrorism, and how we go applaud and follow him.) After a little bit more talking, he says, "In order to ensure our security and continuing stability, the Republic will be reorganized into the first Galactic Empire, for a safe and secure society." (SAFE and SECURE. It is all people are worried about during crisis, and that allows the leader to take over.) Then there is even more clapping and applauding. Described perfectly by Padme, "So this is how liberty dies, with thunderous applause . . . " (And people don't worry about their liberties at first, because all they care about is their safety.)

    See? Being a fanatic isn't that bad. I actually learned something! :slight_smile:
     
    #11 nisomer, Jul 7, 2005
    Last edited: Jul 7, 2005
  12. hawkeye

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Messages:
    263
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Wisconsin
    ok, ww1 and 2 were headed by democrats, but each party was different back then, and there was a very different situation going on. god i hate parties. anyways, did you just blame 9/11 on bush/those in charge? I wish to laugh but my jaw is on the ground. After such a long time of having barely any incidents of airplane hijacking, how the heck could bush/those in charge keep it from happening. If you were in any government place on 9/11, there was heightened security, they knew something was going to happen, but they didnt know what.
    The reason the democrats are shown as less security minded is that one of their points is to decrease funding for the military.

    Ok, the free speech zones are crap. What they do is take protesters to a designated free speech zone away from where the public official will be. The idea is that this removes the people proven to be against the person and more likely to be violent towards him. when bush came through my town i dont remember hearing about anything like this, but there were protesters. i guess he was in busses, so its not like anyone could do anything.

    I dont understand the things you talk about that are taking away civil liberties, except for the free speach thing. as for nam, i forget which party backed france and let nam nurn socialist, but whichever party did that would obviously loose popularity due to making another socialist state, therefore the other party wins the next election. the only logical thing to do is to try to right the socialist nation. failure, the party looses popularity, and the other party gets voted into office and immediately backs out. Parties too often play off of other's mistakes.

    ok, i didnt run out of skittles this time ( i just bought a 3 lb bag), but i think its about time to stop eating them. lol, tell me what you thing about everything.