Political signs

Page 4 of 11  


Kurt (@ least I'm consistent) Ullman
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Stormin Mormon wrote:

* I deny that Bush/Cheny lied us into war. * I do not deny that McCain has reversed his position on some issues, notably immigration reform. On torture, the situation is somewhat tortured. McCain, as a victim of torture himself, has been adamant his entire career in opposing it. What the Democrats are trying to do is use McCains vote against requiring the CIA to use only those techniques listed in the Army Field Manual as evidence he's in lock-step with the administration. There's a good write-up at: http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1729891,00.html * I'd believe McCain took the base's desires into account when he selected Sarah Palin, not even remotely convinced on the rest. Look, the Republican party is made up of two elements: Social conservatives and Economic conservatives.
Social conservatives are locked in to McCain on the issues of abortion, gun rights, and Supreme Court nominations. The rest is just noise.
Economic conservatives are locked in to McCain on the issues of free trade and tax cuts (Republicans believe tax cuts can cure cancer and alleviate bee-bites). The rest is just noise.
In one poll I saw, a slightly higher percentage of Republicans support McCain than Democrats do Obama. No Republican is going to base his vote solely on torture, immigration reform, the war, or any of the almost (to them) insignificant issues.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
HeyBub wrote:

What about if you're a "weak" economic conservative (that is, in favor of small government and low taxes, along with small government and reduced spending, but not necessarily full scale deregulation and aren't necessarily opposed to progressive income taxes) but are opposed to the religious right?
And why *wouldn't* someone base their vote on the war, when it is one of the largest challenges facing us today?
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Nate Nagel wrote:

A "conservative" not opposed to progressive income taxes? A "conservative" not opposed to deregulation? There is no such critter.
Oh, we admit some regulation is necessary so the economic system can function, but banning bug-bombs in New York City because some people ignore the warnings? Banning Halon as a fire suppressant because of a threat to the Ozone layer? Banning DDT? Emptying mental institutions? Liberal policies (i.e., most regulations) often fail. And when they fail, they fail catastrophically; innocent lives are lost, often in great numbers.
Economic conservatives (weak, strong, or otherwise) are indifferent - in the main - to the agenda of social conservatives.
Conservatives are not opposed to ALL growth in government. We favor, for example, a larger military, a larger border patrol, and larger prisons. Some even support chaining miscreants to the wall. Upside down.

A couple of reasons: Because the war in Iraq should be a non-issue in this election. It's virtually over. (The left, however, wants a second bite at the apple by making the war germane. Just like they want a third try at defeating Bush.)
Another reason is that neither social conservatives nor economic conservatives have a dog in the fight; they're indifferent to the war. Almost. Economic conservatives see a down-stream benefit from free trade, but new markets or cheaper raw materials are almost over the horizon and not immediately important. Social conservatives see a slim possibility of bringing Mother Church to the heathens. But neither of these reasons is compelling.
It's up to us neoconservatives to thread the gap between the two to foster American hegemony and world domination.
As to your original point about economic conservatives being opposed to the religious right - there is a tension. But those who feel stronger about economics are willing to put up with the Bible-thumpers because they need their support. Likewise, the strongly religious can easily accommodate the one-worlders and corporate masters because free trade doesn't really affect God. All in all, it's a convenient marriage; loveless, but nevertheless successful.
Contrast that with the conglomeration of interests in the Democrat party. Environmentalists are opposed to drilling in ANWAR but the unions are in favor. Civil rights leaders don't much like women getting preferences and feminists don't like racial quotas. The Democrats are a family, an often dysfunctional family.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It might help if they had an ACCURATE idea of what the war was about and it's real state at the present. Nate has based his on inaccuracy and media propaganda.(that explains a lot..)

Nate,who do you believe is going to enlarge government the LEAST? Obama already has advanced plans to greatly enlarge the government and to usurp the Constitution.
you -say- you are a "conservative",but all your points demonstrate you are a Liberal.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jim Yanik wrote:

Based on the last two administrations, I believe the democrats would actually expand government less than another republican administration.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

up your decision. What is obvious and incontrovertible is that you are doing exactly the same thing you are accusing the Bushsters of doing.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

well,it's now clear you don't know the meaning of "lie",either.
Hard to have a "rational discussion" with someone if they don't know the meaning of words.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/08/who_lied_about_iraq.html
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

was put together under the supervision of the lone holdover from the Clinton administration. So, it would have to be assumed that the holdover was in collusion with the GOP and that he sold his soul to Bush for the job. Hard to believe.. although we ARE talking about a Clinton appointee so may be you have a point (g(). 2).The raw intelligence was placed in a secured room in the Capital prior to the vote so Congresscritter could see it and judge for themselves, less than 1 did. 3)> Even the Freakin' French were not arguing at the time that SH did not have weapons, just that we should continue with the status quo. Largely because Elf, their large oil company was involved with oil for UN.. err kickbacks to SH, err. food deal. (The irony in this so delicious) $). The Iraqi high command was at least as surprised as anyone else by the lack of WMDs. Apparently the Sadamster was using the fact that "other general" were in command of WMD to keep them in line. 5). H certainly wasn't acting like a man w/o something to hide. One of those things that has been said over and over until accepted. Again "ignorant Bush core voter block".
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You omitted the info that many other allies information matched ours WRT Iraq.

the WMD material was moved to Syria.

Well,the leftists hear only what they want to hear,and anything that demonizes Bush(the "illegitimate President") HAS to be gospel. They repeat it over and over so it then becomes (to them) the "truth".
Liberals operate on feelings and not on rational thought.
Nate clearly didn't hear ALL the reasons Bush gave for the Iraq invasion. His Mainstream Media,all Bush haters,omitted or deemphasized much to aid in the demonization of Bush.(the MSM ARE >70% DemocRAT...)
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jim Yanik wrote:

And yet it's odd that the support of said allies started to dry up after we invaded Iraq...
Come on, be honest, when you turned on the TV and saw GWB sitting there telling us that US forces had just invaded Iraq, weren't you thinking exactly what I was - which was pretty much "WTF? Why the hell would he do THAT when we're already committed in Afghanistan? What the hell happened? Shit, this is all about his dad, isn't it?" Never mind that GHWB is on record as stating that the deliberately did not go after Saddam after our initial objectives in GW1 were met as that would destabilize the country and we didn't have the resources to rebuild it from the ground up etc.

Then it's good that GWB will be out of office before he has the chance to invade Syria on your intelligence and embarasses us even more.

There were really only two. WMD's and connections to Bin Laden. Both lies. The latter wasn't really an explicit lie, more of an attempt to associate the two by juxtaposing them in speeches, even though there was no connection between Saddam and Al-Qaida (then) IRL. Cheney did slip up once and made an explicit connection between the two on TV though, although nobody seemed to make any kind of big deal out of it for some reason.
There might have been other reasons for the invasion, but they were never presented to the American public.
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

what lies were those? Do you even know the definition of "lie"?

Nate obviously doesn't know the definitions of many words. "torture"??
I bet McCain knows what "torture" is. Nate sure doesn't.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I do far more than watch Fox News. (and no talk radio,no O'Reilly,no Rush...) Anyone who thinks Time,Newsweek,CBS,NBC,ABC,or CNN are fair and balanced(not even close...) are oblivious.

Nate is citing all the typical LIBERAL,leftist talking points.But he claims to be "centrist". Well,the Soviet communists used to claim they were "progressives",just like the Liberals and DemocRATs of today. And there's lots of similarities between them.
Nate is SO blind.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
And, what use would his signs be, after the election?
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Nate Nagel wrote:

I don't understand this preoccupation with "withdrawal." The United States has a military presence ("Status of Forces" agreement) with 108 countries. That means we have military units/personnel in 108 countries - over and above token groups like embassy marine guards or visiting warships.
We have them there for our benefit.
Not long ago, the Democrats made a big deal out of McCain's guess that we might be in Iraq for an extended period. Heck, we've had US forces in Germany for sixty-three years, a like time for Japan, Korea for over fifty years. We've had US forces in Cuba for 110 years!
Having US forces scattered around the globe - some for many decades - has been the policy of our government for a hundred years.
Look at the places where we did "withdraw:" Vietnam and Panama come to mind. Hong Kong is another example
The "withdrawal" of the righteous yielded failure and disaster for those left behind.
No, the Democrat's mantra for "withdrawal" seems but a thinly-disguised tactic to ensure defeat.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
HeyBub wrote:

Right, but in none of those places is there active fighting going on. There haven't been shots fired in Korea or Germany for decades.

More like, we'd already failed before we withdrew. Just like today.

Why do you assume that everyone that disagrees with our current pointless war is a Democrat?
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

than 5 years after we got there. This argument means nothing until we get 10 or more years out.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Kurt Ullman wrote:

I don't want to commit our young men and women for 10 years in Iraq for no purpose.
It's yet to be explained to me why we're even in Iraq, save for the lies of the Bush administration all proven to have been false.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Nate Nagel wrote:

I believe the reason we're in Iraq is obvious. The small Bush believed that Sadam tried to kill his daddy so he was settling the score.
Boden
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.