LowerCaseRepublican Posted September 1, 2004 Share Posted September 1, 2004 Kap, notice I said campaignS. Agreed both sides have influence. You think the swiftboat guys cannot pick up the phone and get ahold of Rove and vice versa? The same on the Dem side. Politicians love money and these guys have the dough. The difference is no liberal talk show hosts are available on any stations here, only conservative. Damn media bias. Just internet radio. Viva internet radio. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted September 1, 2004 Share Posted September 1, 2004 Maybe I should learn to readS. Thanks for the clarification. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted September 1, 2004 Share Posted September 1, 2004 Maybe I should learn to readS. Thanks for the clarification. Remember I agree 100% with your sig. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted September 1, 2004 Share Posted September 1, 2004 They are showing it on Fox News now. All I can say is these type of ads are definately going to have an effect on the election. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted September 1, 2004 Share Posted September 1, 2004 Now that you mention moveon.org isin't it funny how the media excoriates the Swift Boat Vets for pointing out the hypocrasies of John Kerry in using his own words against him but people like Michael Moore and moveon.org and other bomb throwing leftists get a pass and can say whatever they want about President Bush. Well, I can tell you one thing....I was reading in the Times something about this and it mentioned that roughly 70-80% of the money coming from these groups is going on Anti Bush ads, so the swift boats, while an anti Kerry, it isn't like its only coming from this side, in fact a lot more have been done on the other side. Bush is wanting to get rid of this type of advertising, but I know Newt is against it as are some republicans. I really like Newt, but thats just me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted September 1, 2004 Share Posted September 1, 2004 bush family is plain and simple a corrupt group and if you can't see it, then you are blind. CORRUPT???? George Sr. is one of the biggest patriots their is, and Dubya is a hell of a patriot as well. You can disagree with his opinions, but calling them corrupt is plain old BS. They have definately cleaned up what is going on, I'm sure some stuff still gets hidden, its politics, but things are a lot cleaner now then they were during Clinton, imo. In no way does this have any reference to who was the better president, I'm not getting into that, but I think calling this administration corrupt is very inaccurate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted September 1, 2004 Share Posted September 1, 2004 I still say Kerry's military service, and Bush's lack thereof, should not be issues. We should be talking about REAL issues, like the economy, the environment, social services, civil rights, personal freedoms, etc. Bush doesn't want to discuss THE issues. When has John Kerry laid forth any sort of plan. Hell, one of the only plans I've heard him talk about is his college educational plan, which was on MTV's rock the vote special on him. He went on to mention he wants to make college free to all Americans who are willing to join this group. Its kind of like beinga reservist, except you are basically set to help out your community for like 2 to 4 years and you get free school. The thing is, this makes no freaking sense. Sure it would be tremendous to have people help out the community, but so many young americans would be doing this. I don't know about you, but I don't know how the hell they could afford to do something like this, unless he plans on replacing all the city employees with volunteer students, but I'm sure that would piss off a hell of a lot of people. Although Im sure with all the bs city/government jobs their are, it wouldn't be much of a problem when it comes to efficiency. Sorry if someone works in the govt, but its just my opinion that there are a whole lot of bs jobs out there but I'm not implying that yours is one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted September 1, 2004 Share Posted September 1, 2004 I guess I missed the day in civics class when the Constitution gave the powers of government to define what marriage was to entail. And PA, making abortion illegal doesn't make it go away. It just makes it more unsafe for women to get them (not to mention the racist roots of the pro-life movement: "We need to have babies so the white race is not overrun by mongrels." and other fun statements from the American Medical Association throughout the 1880s and into the 1930s when abortion was seen as more acceptable.) Abstinence education doesn't work. It's like sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" to the problems. And if you're really tied to the pro-life premise, why not lock arms and form blockades around cemetaries? In the words of Bill Hicks, "What matters is that if you believe in the sanctity of life then you believe it for life of all ages. That's what I hate about this child-worship syndrome going on. "Save the children! They're killing children! How many children were at Waco? They're killing children!" What does that mean? They reach a certain age and they're off your f***ing love-list? f*** your children. If that's the way you think then f*** you too. You either love all people of all ages or you shut the f*** up." It's fun as a Republican that you are railing for more government involvement in peoples' lives. Gay marriage. I'm more worried about heterosexuals that f*** over the meaning and "sanctity" of marriage more than I'm worried about two people who love each other getting married if they are consenting adults. If anything, people who love each other can only strengthen the idea of marriage...and they don't have to get married in a church. Personal responsibility is something this country is lacking and I do not need a big-government uber-daddy telling me what I can and cannot do with my body as long as I am not harming another human being. Well in 2008 their will be a pro choice republican running for office, imo. Whether its Arnold, McCain, or Rudy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted September 2, 2004 Share Posted September 2, 2004 On the whole homosexual issue, I must be one of the rare republicans that could give two cents about the whole thing. I just don't consider it an issue. I really don't pay attention to what my neighbor is doing, nor do I care. As long as he isn't murdering people, molesting children, selling drugs, etc. Imo, being gay isn't in that category, therefor I don't care. People have been gay probably since the cave days. Their were homosexuals in the roman empire and prior to that. Hell, back then it wasn't even looked at as a big deal. Just because god says its wrong, doesn't mean I'm going to buy into it. Hell, if thats the theory, then a hell of a lot of christians would be screwed already because they had premarital sex. Here's a question, whats worse...premarital sex or being gay? (I hope everyone sees the sarcasm in it). I guess I consider myself a christian, but I'm not a virgin and I don't think I'm going to hell because of it. So why should some parts of christianity be looked at more heavily then others. As far as I'm concerned, life is different now then it was when the bible was created. I think the bible sets up some good values and the world would be better if it followed the main rules of almost every religion (if you look, all religions essentially are based on some good morals), but the far out whackos just go way overboard. *end rant* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AngelasDaddy0427 Posted September 2, 2004 Share Posted September 2, 2004 My dad was a Vietnam veteran. It f***ed him up for the rest of his life. He never talked about it. Hell I didn't even find out what the hell he actually did their until after he died. (He was an Army Airborne Ranger by the way.) Anyway back to the point... After he came home he got into drugs and got into alcohol. He had a ton of psycholical problems. The war f***ed up his life and he never got it back on track. He lost his business to cancer that I'm sure he got being exposed to those damn chemicals like Agent Orange. I'm sorry for not jumping right on the military bandwagon because even though I respect our troops and I support anyone who joins the armed forces (I tried to join when I graduated high school but I couldn't pass the physical because of some health issues) I cannot support a war that just sends people off to fight just to find out later on that the whole issue was exaggerated and overblown in the first place. I'd rather not see things like what happened to my dad happen again. Personally I think John Kerry had every right to speak his mind after he got home. Also for you people who are quick to say that everything Kerry said back then was made up, how do we know that? We are always so quick to assume that America is always the good guys. Just go out and get yourself a few history books and you'll find out thats not always the case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted September 2, 2004 Share Posted September 2, 2004 CORRUPT???? George Sr. is one of the biggest patriots their is, and Dubya is a hell of a patriot as well. You can disagree with his opinions, but calling them corrupt is plain old BS. They have definately cleaned up what is going on, I'm sure some stuff still gets hidden, its politics, but things are a lot cleaner now then they were during Clinton, imo. In no way does this have any reference to who was the better president, I'm not getting into that, but I think calling this administration corrupt is very inaccurate. Corrupt, yes. When Bush was leader of the CIA, they financed the introduction of crack cocaine to neutralize the black population and pay for their wars in Central America. In WW II, there is evidence that he bailed out of his bomber instead of following protocol to save his own ass and left his crew to die. Pair this with his involvement in Iran-Contra to his deep relationships with defense contractors and the bin Ladens via the Carlyle Group and there is a big case to be made for the corruptness of George HW Bush. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted September 2, 2004 Share Posted September 2, 2004 Well in 2008 their will be a pro choice republican running for office, imo. Whether its Arnold, McCain, or Rudy. Jas...Arnold can't run for President as per the rules in the Constitution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted September 2, 2004 Share Posted September 2, 2004 Jas...Arnold can't run for President as per the rules in the Constitution. Ya, but things may be different in 4 years if that act is passed. I have no idea if it will (I forget the name of the act), but if it does he'll be eligible. I think it says you have to be a citizen for 25 years. I've also heard mention of a democract in Michigan that would be eligible as well and he's supposed to be a pretty strong candidate from the democratic perspective. That being said, I'm sure Hilary will do whatever she can to make sure that doesn't happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted September 2, 2004 Share Posted September 2, 2004 Ya, but things may be different in 4 years if that act is passed. I have no idea if it will (I forget the name of the act), but if it does he'll be eligible. I think it says you have to be a citizen for 25 years. I've also heard mention of a democract in Michigan that would be eligible as well and he's supposed to be a pretty strong candidate from the democratic perspective. That being said, I'm sure Hilary will do whatever she can to make sure that doesn't happen. Article II, Section One: No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States. By this strict definition alone, Arnold could run. I always thought you had to be a natural born citizen, but this clause does not say that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sox4lifeinPA Posted September 2, 2004 Share Posted September 2, 2004 Article II, Section One: No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States. By this strict definition alone, Arnold could run. I always thought you had to be a natural born citizen, but this clause does not say that. nope, otherwise Alexander Hamilton (born in Haiti, IIRC) would have run and won a presidency... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted September 2, 2004 Share Posted September 2, 2004 nope, otherwise Alexander Hamilton (born in Haiti, IIRC) would have run and won a presidency... Hamilton is the least hailed politician I've ever seen, yet he deserves so much stinking credti towards the whole capitalism system that the US uses. If he didn't have his rash temper, he probably would of ran, cause he would of been eligible, considering he was a U.S. citizen at the time the constitution was written. Remember, way back then, everyone was essentially an immigrant and if I recall Hamilton tried on more then one ocassion and I think he was VP a few times. However, numerous politicans hated him and I mean hated him. I know Hamilton was very involved when Washington was in office, I Thought he was the V.P. but someone else could check me on that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrimsonWeltall Posted September 2, 2004 Share Posted September 2, 2004 If he didn't have his rash temper, he probably would of ran, cause he would of been eligible, considering he was a U.S. citizen at the time the constitution was written. Yeah he was a citizen, but he wasn't born in the colonies so he was krunked. He was never VP. He's no Levi P Morton Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted September 2, 2004 Share Posted September 2, 2004 Yeah he was a citizen, but he wasn't born in the colonies so he was krunked. He was never VP. He's no Levi P Morton But since he was a citizen at the time it was written (as well as adopted), wouldn't that of left him as a possibility? Article II, Section One: No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrimsonWeltall Posted September 2, 2004 Share Posted September 2, 2004 Ah yes, I forgot about that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted September 2, 2004 Author Share Posted September 2, 2004 Corrupt, yes. When Bush was leader of the CIA, they financed the introduction of crack cocaine to neutralize the black population and pay for their wars in Central America. In WW II, there is evidence that he bailed out of his bomber instead of following protocol to save his own ass and left his crew to die. Pair this with his involvement in Iran-Contra to his deep relationships with defense contractors and the bin Ladens via the Carlyle Group and there is a big case to be made for the corruptness of George HW Bush. More bulls*** from APU. Nice try blaming the CIA for the drug problem in the Black community but they had nothing to do with it despite your best efforts to fabricate "proof". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted September 2, 2004 Share Posted September 2, 2004 More bulls*** from APU. Nice try blaming the CIA for the drug problem in the Black community but they had nothing to do with it despite your best efforts to fabricate "proof". Nuke, this was well documented back in the late 1980s when the US was trying to sell arms to the Contras and getting in bed with some pretty shady individuals. Do a google search and wade through the wackos for the more legit sources. The CIA also did extensive experiments with hallucinagenics (SP?). Remember this is the same government that unknowingly exposed civilians and military personel to atomic blast radiation to study the effects. You will probably like this link Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LDF Posted September 2, 2004 Share Posted September 2, 2004 More bulls*** from APU. Nice try blaming the CIA for the drug problem in the Black community but they had nothing to do with it despite your best efforts to fabricate "proof". In olie north book, he too said that he lied in order to save the vice president from charges, in 1970 when geogie boy was director of the cia, the cia establish the golden triangle, (combida(sp) field, to asia minor, to new york). now for the legal stuff, i will provide proof later on on his continue involvment with the drugs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted September 2, 2004 Share Posted September 2, 2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sox4lifeinPA Posted September 2, 2004 Share Posted September 2, 2004 that's probably the most offensive thing I've ever seen in my life. :fyou Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted September 2, 2004 Share Posted September 2, 2004 that's probably the most offensive thing I've ever seen in my life. :fyou Slandering a person who did something brave really stings, eh? Well maybe you should rail against the Not So Swift Boat Vets for doing the same thing to Kerry. It's the same moral throughway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.