[hwacker]

CommanderSock wrote:

Bush is a fool and an ideologue. His constant propagation of right wing policies has back fired on him.

Republican party is now catering more to wing nuts and evangelicals than the common centre and fiscal conservatives.

Barry Goldwater warned against letting the freaks in the party.

Well hey throw out the abortion issue and stupid left socialism policies maybe the country would be more together on things.

Until then the country will remain divided, just like Canada.

[CommanderSock]

hwacker wrote:

CommanderSock wrote:

Bush is a fool and an ideologue. His constant propagation of right wing policies has back fired on him.

Republican party is now catering more to wing nuts and evangelicals than the common centre and fiscal conservatives.

Barry Goldwater warned against letting the freaks in the party.

Well hey throw out the abortion issue and stupid left socialism policies maybe the country would be more together on things.

Until then the country will remain divided, just like Canada.

It is far more than a few liberal social issues, (name some by the way, other than multiculturalism which doesn't exist in the US and it has made no difference regardless).

It is far more than abortion, although the evangelical whack jobs probably vote just for that.

It goes far deeper than that.

One cannot govern with a staunch left or right wing ideology (Harper learned that!). A middle ground must be reached. A strong ideology is like an intoxicant, fools have no idea how to act. And Bush is intoxicated as fuck.

[hwacker]

CommanderSock wrote:

hwacker wrote:

CommanderSock wrote:

Bush is a fool and an ideologue. His constant propagation of right wing policies has back fired on him.

Republican party is now catering more to wing nuts and evangelicals than the common centre and fiscal conservatives.

Barry Goldwater warned against letting the freaks in the party.

Well hey throw out the abortion issue and stupid left socialism policies maybe the country would be more together on things.

Until then the country will remain divided, just like Canada.

It is far more than a few liberal social issues, (name some by the way, other than multiculturalism which doesn't exist in the US and it has made no difference regardless).

It is far more than abortion, although the evangelical whack jobs probably vote just for that.

It goes far deeper than that.

One cannot govern with a staunch left or right wing ideology (Harper learned that!). A middle ground must be reached. A strong ideology is like an intoxicant, fools have no idea how to act. And Bush is intoxicated as fuck.

Harper got re-elected and bush got 2 terms, if the economy didn’t go south I’ll bet Mac would have won.

When USA wakes up and finds out BHO is not all he BSed about and they also find out the Dems are the ones that put the country into the state it’s in Sir Blackness will be fucked even more then bush is right now.

[snuggles61]

sandorski wrote:

I don't care what Bush's IQ is, he's an Idiot. Somewhere between his Brain and his Actions he fucks things up and leaves messes for others to clean up. It's the story of his Life.

[CommanderSock]

Quote:

Harper got re-elected and bush got 2 terms, if the economy didn’t go south I’ll bet Mac would have won.

When USA wakes up and finds out BHO is not all he BSed about and they also find out the Dems are the ones that put the country into the state it’s in Sir Blackness will be fucked even more then bush is right now.

Harper did not get a clear mandate. A shitty minority where he will be forced to water down all the bills. If Canada was two party system the liberals would own 3/4 of the house.

There are four liberal parties in Canada (NDP, Libs, Green, Bloq). The Liberal vote is split 4 ways. The conservative vote is not split. If Dildo acts on his word we'll be hitting the polls before the end of 2009.

Canada is still far more liberal than America, and this so called 'divide' is in the imagination of the right wingers.

The Canadian right wing party has been watered down to a business party, and so it shall remain because now the conservatives in Canada have 50% of the immigrant vote and won't do too much to upset the newcomers.

America is a two party system, and America's south and mid west are full of whack jobs who not only cling on to their guns and religion, but also their old fashioned racism, abortion, death penalty, and falce misconceptions about the meaning of socialism.

See the thumping victories Obama took in NY, California and other NE and Western states. Also see Virginia turning blue. Times are changing. The republican party will have to change.

The truth is, usually republicans vote more than democrats, now that Barack has gotten them to go out and vote, if it persists, there could be many democratic presidents to come.

[fire_i]

CommanderSock wrote:

Bush is (...) an ideologue.

And this, good people, is the best word that could have been used.

Not an idiot, not a complete moron, not a marionnette, just an ideologue who screwed things up by governing unilaterally too often. And that's something that could change now considering Obama appears to prefer multilateralism (mind you, a similar result could have been reached by McCain, although I'm sure it would have been to a much lesser extent).

[hwacker]

CommanderSock wrote:

Quote:

Harper got re-elected and bush got 2 terms, if the economy didn’t go south I’ll bet Mac would have won.

When USA wakes up and finds out BHO is not all he BSed about and they also find out the Dems are the ones that put the country into the state it’s in Sir Blackness will be fucked even more then bush is right now.

Harper did not get a clear mandate. A shitty minority where he will be forced to water down all the bills. If Canada was two party system the liberals would own 3/4 of the house.

There are four liberal parties in Canada (NDP, Libs, Green, Bloq). The Liberal vote is split 4 ways. The conservative vote is not split. If Dildo acts on his word we'll be hitting the polls before the end of 2009.

Canada is still far more liberal than America, and this so called 'divide' is in the imagination of the right wingers.

The Canadian right wing party has been watered down to a business party, and so it shall remain because now the conservatives in Canada have 50% of the immigrant vote and won't do too much to upset the newcomers.

America is a two party system, and America's south and mid west are full of whack jobs who not only cling on to their guns and religion, but also their old fashioned racism, abortion, death penalty, and falce misconceptions about the meaning of socialism.

See the thumping victories Obama took in NY, California and other NE and Western states. Also see Virginia turning blue. Times are changing. The republican party will have to change.

The truth is, usually republicans vote more than democrats, now that Barack has gotten them to go out and vote, if it persists, there could be many democratic presidents to come.

Well the left with their queers and welfare bums better hope there is never another civil war, with all those guns and whack jobs it will be short ass kicking.

[CommanderSock]

hwacker wrote:

Well the left with their queers and welfare bums better hope there is never another civil war, with all those guns and whack jobs it will be short ass kicking.

Why would there be another civil war? Want to bring slavery back? Only nut jobs dream about civil wars when their guy doesn't get elected. Democrats bitched for 8 years, now the Republicans can do some bitching for a change.

But I am sure Obama will be above the petty partisanship that the Bush administration partook in. I can almost guarantee that Obama will not govern as deep from the left, as Bush did from the deep right.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ ... mment/home

[Pseudonym]

Why are quoting an article on Canadian politics here? How does it apply?

[Pseudonym]

CommanderSock wrote:

It is far more than abortion, although the evangelical whack jobs probably vote just for that.

I would vote based purely on this issue. To do otherwise, given my worldview, would be to declare that other issues supersede this one in moral significance.

[Psudo]

CommanderSock wrote:

I am sure Obama will be above the petty partisanship that the Bush administration partook in.

Hahahaha! Thanks, that cheered me up.

Bush ran a work-across-the-aisles campaign, too. In fact, he actually did work with Democrats on issues like immigration and No Child Left Behind. What makes you think Obama won't do the same, work across the aisle on a few issues and stand his ground on big, controversial issues (like Iraq, in Bush's case)? Isn't that standard operating procedure for federal politicians?

CommanderSock wrote:

the evangelical whack jobs probably vote just for [abortion].

I imagine some pro-choice voters vote solely on that view as well. Are you saying all single-issue voters are "whack jobs", or just evangelical ones?

[Pseudonym]

Psudo wrote:

CommanderSock wrote:

the evangelical whack jobs probably vote just for [abortion].

I imagine some pro-choice voters vote solely on that view as well. Are you saying all single-issue voters are "whack jobs", or just evangelical ones?

Hey! I am trying to contend that single-issues voters are not whackjobs in this case, and you go behind me and try to draw some moral equivalences? Fail.
We don't want to overload his argument cortex.

[CommanderSock]

Quote:

I would vote based purely on this issue. To do otherwise, given my worldview, would be to declare that other issues supersede this one in moral significance.

Let me get this straight, you vote ONLY because your candidate supports banning abortion? And I am assuming you do this after you have weighed in the pros, the cons, the appointment of permanent staff (Supreme court judges for example), foreign policy, and domestic policy (excluding the 'single issue')? You vote based purely on one issue? Regardless of everything else? You beleive that your moral authority to make women have no choice for their bodies exceeds all other issues? Hm.....i see..

I don't need to argue on this any further. I will always remain puzzled as to how a person would vote in someone who they have doubts about, someone who has the authority to create policies that affect not only people in your own country, but those outside of it. Policies that can cause the death of hundreds and thousands of innocent civilians. Policies that can help, hundreds, and thousands of civilians. Policies that affect the lives of millions across the globe.
You hand the keys of the world's greatest military force to an executive over a single issue?
The right to choose whether or not to kill a fetus? This, is fucking absurd!

Quote:

Bush ran a work-across-the-aisles campaign, too. In fact, he actually did work with Democrats on issues like immigration and No Child Left Behind. What makes you think Obama won't do the same, work across the aisle on a few issues and stand his ground on big, controversial issues (like Iraq, in Bush's case)? Isn't that standard operating procedure for federal politicians?

Bush governed from the right. Regardless of what you say he worked hard not to work with the democrats. He worked hard to get more Republican Senators elected so he could push through his agenda. He did this after the fervor of 9/11. The rest is history.

[CommanderSock]

Quote:

Bush ran a work-across-the-aisles campaign, too. In fact, he actually did work with Democrats on issues like immigration and No Child Left Behind. What makes you think Obama won't do the same, work across the aisle on a few issues and stand his ground on big, controversial issues (like Iraq, in Bush's case)? Isn't that standard operating procedure for federal politicians?

I'm going to add to this one. Bush had the chance to change the landscape of American politics. Bush had a chance to leave a legacy. I am talking about Immigration. Bush personally believes in having the extra labour. He believes in granting a sort of amnesty to immigrants. This is what Bush believed! Many Democrats are also pro immigration.

In a Democratically controlled house, Bush had the opportunity to push through a major immigration bill working with democrats and a few select republicans. Instead, he succumbed to the wack job elements of his party and watered down the bill to the point where neither the democrats, nor republicans approved it.

This Bill is like the Civil Rights Act, LBJ worked AGAINST democrats, as the old democrats were concentrated in the south. He worked against his own party to deliver something he believed in.

If only Bush had the courage to do this. He is WEAK. Smart or not, he is a weak president. He has allowed the internal forces to pull him too far to the right and hold him for ransom there. He, is, a, failure! And his lack of legislative success in his second term proves that.

Now fuck this shit im off to study for the afternoon.

[Pseudonym]

CommanderSock wrote:

Quote:

I would vote based purely on this issue. To do otherwise, given my worldview, would be to declare that other issues supersede this one in moral significance.

Let me get this straight, you vote ONLY because your candidate supports banning abortion? And I am assuming you do this after you have weighed in the pros, the cons, the appointment of permanent staff (Supreme court judges for example), foreign policy, and domestic policy (excluding the 'single issue')? You vote based purely on one issue? Regardless of everything else? You beleive that your moral authority to make women have no choice for their bodies exceeds all other issues? Hm.....i see..

I don't need to argue on this any further. I will always remain puzzled as to how a person would vote in someone who they have doubts about, someone who has the authority to create policies that affect not only people in your own country, but those outside of it. Policies that can cause the death of hundreds and thousands of innocent civilians. Policies that can help, hundreds, and thousands of civilians. Policies that affect the lives of millions across the globe.
You hand the keys of the world's greatest military force to an executive over a single issue?
The right to choose whether or not to kill a fetus? This, is fucking absurd!

If I take the position that abortion is murder, there is no equivalent moral issue in American politics today. What say you to that? No, not whether abortion is murder, I doubt we shall agree on that. Is there any equivalent moral issue given my stance? There is NONE.