I am a Republican thinking Democratic this year

[Magneto X]

Are you a Republican thining about voting Democratic this time?

[Spackling Compound]

Are you a Republican thining about voting Democratic this time?

Is this the prequel thread to the Obama love-thread?

[Agent Helix]

Man, if only there was a thread for the upcoming election, where people could discuss this sort of thing.

[Matt Algren]

Is this the prequel thread to the Obama love-thread?
No, it's a "look at me! look at me!" thread.

[Jeff Brady]

We need a Magneto X's Shit-Stirring Inane Political Mega-Thread.

[Mike Smash!]

We need a Magneto X's Shit-Stirring Inane Political Mega-Thread.You forget a piece of that title.

Magneto X's Shit-Stirring Inane Obama-Love-Fest Political Mega-Thread

[BoosterBronze]

You forget a piece of that title.

Magneto X's Shit-Stirring Inane Obama-Love-Fest Political Mega-Thread

or

Magneto X's Shit-Stirring Soon to be Deleted Inane Obama-Love-Fest BoosterBronze could really go for a sandwhich right now Political Mega-Thread

[Wesley Dodds]

We need a Magneto X's Shit-Stirring Inane Political Mega-Thread.

Today's troll is tomorrow's CotM.

[BoosterBronze]

OK, I'll bite.

In what ways do you define yourself as Republican, and what is inspiring you to vote democratic this election?

[mattx110]

OK, I'll bite.

In what ways do you define yourself as Republican, and what is inspiring you to vote democratic this election?
That's a bite? It sounds more like an intro to a lecture on American politics in the 20th century...

[Paul McEnery]

OK, I'll bite.

In what ways do you define yourself as Republican, and what is inspiring you to vote democratic this election?

Me too!

If you do define yourself as Democratic, why are you Republican-thinking?

[mattx110]

Me too!

If you do define yourself as Democratic, why are you Republican-thinking?
Feeling a little displaced? Take two of these....

[Dreadstar]

*twweeeeeeeet!*

10 yard penalty and loss of down, a balk, a yellow card, and two free-throws for the visiting team on Magneto X for starting 2 threads and not participating in them.

[Mike Smash!]

OK, I'll bite.

In what ways do you define yourself as Republican, and what is inspiring you to vote democratic this election?I don't think he's Republican at all. None of his stated stances on things seem to have any conservative flavor to them.

I think he's just using this as a lead-in to prostelityze about Obama again. He's so dreamy!!

[mattx110]

I don't think he's Republican at all. None of his stated stances on things seem to have any conservative flavor to them.

I think he's just using this as a lead-in to prostelityze about Obama again. He's so dreamy!!
He is pretty handsome... Obama, not Magneto. I don't know Magneto that well...

But, I mean, if you're gonna have a politician love-fest, and you pick Guiliani or Thompson.... I mean, maaaaaybe a young bill richardson. But even Romney is like, 20% less handsome.

I don't know what I'm saying.

[Paul McEnery]

He is pretty handsome... Obama, not Magneto. I don't know Magneto that well...

But, I mean, if you're gonna have a politician love-fest, and you pick Guiliani or Thompson.... I mean, maaaaaybe a young bill richardson. But even Romney is like, 20% less handsome.

I don't know what I'm saying.

You Heart Huckabees?

[mattx110]

You Heart Huckabees?
Cool Hand Lube, and a voting machine have very different levers, and require very different requirements in a candidate.

Being completely sexier than a saran-wrapped cyborg scifi woman doesn't make someone a good president. But it makes you a pretty good focal point for public intercourse. I mean discourse.

[Alex]

I think he's just using this as a lead-in to prostelityze about Obama again. He's so dreamy!!

He's also young, and well spoken.
And his wife refered to him as her "baby daddy" when he got elected.
The kids love that.

[Magneto X]

This has nothing to do with Obama. NPR reported, anecdotally, that based on the last few years some longtime Republicans were thinking of voting Democratic this year. I think if it is a phenomenon, it's rare (we coined the term "blue dog Democrat" for those longtime Dems who voted for Ronald Reagen based on the Dems previous performance, and that term still refers to a caucus today) and I wonder if it's true of any of the Republican posters here. And if so, which reason is it? Is it deficit spending? Was it Terry Schiavo (not state's rights)? Was it Iraq?

[mattx110]

This has nothing to do with Obama. NPR reported, anecdotally, that based on the last few years some longtime Republicans were thinking of voting Democratic this year. I think if it is a phenomenon, it's rare (we coined the term "blue dog Democrat" for those longtime Dems who voted for Ronald Reagen based on the Dems previous performance, and that term still refers to a caucus today) and I wonder if it's true of any of the Republican posters here. And if so, which reason is it? Is it deficit spending? Was it Terry Schiavo (not state's rights)? Was it Iraq?
I imagine embarassment would be the motivating factor.

[Tadhg Adams]

He's also young, and well spoken.
And his wife refered to him as her "baby daddy" when he got elected.
The kids love that.

Democratic National Convention.

[Mike Smash!]

This has nothing to do with Obama. for how long? I give it less than 50 posts before you start spamming for Obama.

Hell, other people assumed it before I did... Like in your other threads.

[Riddley Walker]

Democratic National Convention.

Speaking of which, when Bill Clinton spoke at the 1988 Democratic National Convention, I was spellbound and my very liberal Democrat friends yelled "Stop!" and "Shut up!" and "Sit down!" and sighed dramatic relief when he stopped and I said "That man will be president" and my friends said stopshutupsitdown but I didn't so they didn't sigh relief and four years later I said "See" because the commentators and media in general mostly agreed with my friends that night but most changed their minds in time to vote him in the first time. And the second.

When Barack Obama spoke at the 2004 DNC, spellbound I said what I'd said about Bill Clinton and my friends all said variations on what my friends had said 16 years earlier. Now, I think this current election is too soon for Obama to try to prove me right, and I still think he'll have a better chance 4 or 8 years from now and it wouldn't hurt him a bit to get a state governorship under his belt in the meantime but I think he may have a chance this time and if he fails this time I still think "That man will be president" and I am possessed by the spirit of Gertrude Stein:eek: :rolleyes: :D

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

I think he's just using this as a lead-in to prostelityze about Obama again. He's so dreamy!!

Obama?

He's that black guy right?

[Armless Penguin]

Now, I think this current election is too soon for Obama to try to prove me right, and I still think he'll have a better chance 4 or 8 years from now and it wouldn't hurt him a bit to get a state governorship under his belt in the meantime but I think he may have a chance this time and if he fails this time I still think "That man will be president" and I am possessed by the spirit of Gertrude Stein:eek: :rolleyes: :D

This just seems all the more prophetic for its almost complete lack of punctuation, :eek:

Obama in 2008, Riddley called it first!

[Magneto X]

for how long? I give it less than 50 posts before you start spamming for Obama.


Sooooooooo true, MS!! And it takes you at least 60 posts before you say Dems and Republicans are the same! :D

Too bad you couldn't wait for it? You're point about what I'm about to do is so much better when you just imagine it first, get too excited, and let that indignation burst early. Aw. But now we'll never be sure we know the agenda I had, no more, apparently, than you've understood what words like "spamming" really mean. :rolleyes:


But be sure to post for a third and fourth time about Obama and how I'm going to turn this into being about him. Maybe the irony will sink in. Probably not.

[Magneto X]

I respect Republicans who are sincerely into the base ideas of small limited government, state rights, low taxes, strong defense. Principles are more interesting to me than triangulation or personal power, revenge politics or vanity politics. So I am actually interested if this phenomenon is true. Maybe people are polling away from the party because they are going left. Maybe it isn't true and polls lie once again. Or maybe people are polling away from the party because it isn't right enough on spending or who knows what.

I imagine embarassment would be the motivating factor.

That's something I'm fascinated with. I grew up in the era when Dems were deeply embarrased about being liberal, or even the word liberal.

That seems to be wearing off.

At the same time, I wonder what Republicans feel about the Grand Old Party.

[Mike Smash!]

Sooooooooo true, MS!! And it takes you at least 60 posts before you say Dems and Republicans are the same! :D

Too bad you couldn't wait for it? You're point about what I'm about to do is so much better when you just imagine it first, get too excited, and let that indignation burst early. Aw. But now we'll never be sure we know the agenda I had, no more, apparently, than you've understood what words like "spamming" really mean. :rolleyes:


But be sure to post for a third and fourth time about Obama and how I'm going to turn this into being about him. Maybe the irony will sink in. Probably not.How many threads again have you started to talk about Hillary vs. Obama or just Obama again? How many are questions that ask something, but don't care about the answer only to roll into a predetermined rant?

Wow, enough that it's the number one joke that everyone seems to tell about you?

And gee... how many threads have I started about the similarity (I never said "same"...again) between the two parties or about my preferred candidate, ever?

Big fat NONE.

[Wesley Dodds]

How many threads again have you started to talk about Hillary vs. Obama or just Obama again?

So... it's a bit like you and threads about the Greens, then?

[Mike Smash!]

So... it's a bit like you and threads about the Greens, then?How many threads have I started about the Greens?

Seriously. Check.

[Wesley Dodds]

How many threads have I started about the Greens?

Seriously. Check.

Not that you start threads that say "this thread is about the Greens" -- in fact, this thread isn't even about Obama -- but you bring almost every political issue back to the Greens.

We don't mind, but you do go on about them a lot.

[Mike Smash!]

Not that you start threads that say "this thread is about the Greens" -- in fact, this thread isn't even about Obama -- but you bring almost every political issue back to the Greens.

We don't mind, but you do go on about them a lot.No, alot of times I don't mention the Greens or third parties until someone else brings them up. Hell, in my debates with Magneto X, they came up only when he used the old Samurai tactic of "Well... (blank) did (blank) first..." to try to make me look like a hypocrite for saying something.

Sort of the way that you're doing it now.

And even now, I'm only talking about them because you brought it up.

But truth be told, I usually don't bring any topic to the Greens, so much as I come at it from a third party perspective. Most of the time, I never even mention the Greens by name. I've certainly never started a thread to spam about them.

Mags, on the other hand, has started threads that were little more than just an pasted article about how Barack Obama is winning this or that or how Hillary is a meanie compared to him. Hell, half of the time, that's how he bumps that Obama thread of his. Most of his Obama threads have been merged into other threads, but the guy has started several such threads to pimp his candidate in a very short span of time.

I've never once started a thread about specifically the Greens or Nader. I checked and the closest thing I could find was a thread about a personal accomplishment or action (being elected state party Vice Chair or going to the national convention), but those threads were far more about me.

And believe me, I checked.

[Jared_Humpherys]

Page one of threads started by Mike Smash!. (http://forums.comicbookresources.com/search.php?searchid=2924583&pp=25&page=2)


Page one of threads started by Magneto X. (http://forums.comicbookresources.com/search.php?searchid=2924585)

See a difference? I do.

[Puma]

Page one of threads started by Mike Smash!. (http://forums.comicbookresources.com/search.php?searchid=2924583&pp=25&page=2)


Page one of threads started by Magneto X. (http://forums.comicbookresources.com/search.php?searchid=2924585)

See a difference? I do.

I see a few more locks on one.

[Tadhg Adams]

No, alot of times I don't mention the Greens or third parties until someone else brings them up. Hell, in my debates with Magneto X, they came up only when he used the old Samurai tactic of "Well... (blank) did (blank) first..." to try to make me look like a hypocrite for saying something.

Sort of the way that you're doing it now.

And even now, I'm only talking about them because you brought it up.

But truth be told, I usually don't bring any topic to the Greens, so much as I come at it from a third party perspective. Most of the time, I never even mention the Greens by name. I've certainly never started a thread to spam about them.

Mags, on the other hand, has started threads that were little more than just an pasted article about how Barack Obama is winning this or that or how Hillary is a meanie compared to him. Hell, half of the time, that's how he bumps that Obama thread of his. Most of his Obama threads have been merged into other threads, but the guy has started several such threads to pimp his candidate in a very short span of time.

I've never once started a thread about specifically the Greens or Nader. I checked and the closest thing I could find was a thread about a personal accomplishment or action (being elected state party Vice Chair or going to the national convention), but those threads were far more about me.

And believe me, I checked.

So of course, the answer is to make another big public spectacle of it instead of say, simply reporting the post and ignoring it? Excellent.

[Jared_Humpherys]

So of course, the answer is to make another big public spectacle of it instead of say, simply reporting the post and ignoring it? Excellent.

Tadhg does have a point as well.

[Tadhg Adams]

Tadhg does have a point as well.

I'm obviously not without fault, as I have caused fights and taken part in fights on the board. But somehow it seems like posting repeatedly in all of a guy's threads that you take issue with is not the proper course of action.

[Magneto X]

I'm obviously not without fault, as I have caused fights and taken part in fights on the board. But somehow it seems like posting repeatedly in all of a guy's threads that you take issue with is not the proper course of action.

I think Mike's anti-me posts are getting a bit out of line too, not surprisingly, although I'm happy to admit MS has his points too (and, as someone who worked on Nader's 2000 campaign, I can appreciate many of those ideals). While Dems and Republicans and Hillary and Obama and the future of politics have all come up during the pre-primary season a lot, other folks have their favorite topics as well, and I personally have written mostly about race and characters of color and, after the primaries are more settled, you'll notice: X-Men and the other mutant books. (Hence the name.) But I don't think MS is in a great position to preach against me, and I'm beginning to think that, besides those thoughtful points you've made, Mike, there is something else, perhaps something neither of us have realized or named yet, that is a part of whatever it is bothering him. So, instead of these accusatory and holier-than-thou posts about me, do feel free to just message me if you think of what it is.

[Sabrinaset]

Are you a Republican thining about voting Democratic this time?

I'm underweight, so I can't really thin much more than I am. This might rule me out from voting Democratic, I guess.

This has nothing to do with Obama. NPR reported, anecdotally, that based on the last few years some longtime Republicans were thinking of voting Democratic this year. I think if it is a phenomenon, it's rare (we coined the term "blue dog Democrat" for those longtime Dems who voted for Ronald Reagen based on the Dems previous performance, and that term still refers to a caucus today) and I wonder if it's true of any of the Republican posters here. And if so, which reason is it? Is it deficit spending? Was it Terry Schiavo (not state's rights)? Was it Iraq?

The inability to control spending and government growth is a bigger reason to me than Iraq why Bush is a poor president. I mean, if you can't control your own house ... Terry Schiavo ...? Off the radar.

Right now, I have no clue which Republican I'd even care to vote for. I probably won't vote for any of them. If I had to vote for a Democrat, it probably would be Obama. It certainly wouldn't be Herr Shrillary. Aaaaaaand ... I say this having quit the GOP about ... six months back? My feelings would be the same regardless at this point. I have no desire to vote for any one of them, and I'll probably sit out the election.

I imagine embarassment would be the motivating factor.

Nah. The Republican party is bigger than Bush. So is Conservatism. W will go, the GOP and Conservative belief will outlast him, and better representatives of each than Bush are out there. Darned if I know who they are right now though.

I respect Republicans who are sincerely into the base ideas of small limited government, state rights, low taxes, strong defense. Principles are more interesting to me than triangulation or personal power, revenge politics or vanity politics. So I am actually interested if this phenomenon is true. Maybe people are polling away from the party because they are going left. Maybe it isn't true and polls lie once again. Or maybe people are polling away from the party because it isn't right enough on spending or who knows what.

That's something I'm fascinated with. I grew up in the era when Dems were deeply embarrased about being liberal, or even the word liberal.

That seems to be wearing off.

At the same time, I wonder what Republicans feel about the Grand Old Party.

I feel pity for it right now.

I also feel bad for the REAL Magneto X, but that's another issue.

[mattx110]

Strong defense and low taxes basically means "education, ha!? health care? Corporations care, don't they?"

And how Magneto x, are you a republican? Supporting a democrat now. volunteered for Nader...

I think you may have filled out the wrong card when registering to vote and now you need to convert us all to Obama because you can't vote in the primary...

[Sabrinaset]

Strong defense and low taxes basically means "education, ha!? health care? Corporations care, don't they?"

And how Magneto x, are you a republican? Supporting a democrat now. volunteered for Nader...

I think you may have filled out the wrong card when registering to vote and now you need to convert us all to Obama because you can't vote in the primary...

I'm gunna second this. In what ways are you a Republican? Or are a conservative? Do you have any right-wing beliefs? Are you for lowering taxes? Pro-life? Is the government too intrusive on individual freedoms? Do you thing the federal government should grow or shrink? Your profile says you're an advocate ... what are you an advocate for?

[Tadhg Adams]

I'm pretty sure he didn't mean he, personally, was a republican; just wrote his subject very poorly.

[Ben Morgan]

Page one of threads started by Mike Smash!. (http://forums.comicbookresources.com/search.php?searchid=2924583&pp=25&page=2)


Page one of threads started by Magneto X. (http://forums.comicbookresources.com/search.php?searchid=2924585)

See a difference? I do.

"Sorry - no matches. Please try some different terms."

[mattx110]

I'm pretty sure he didn't mean he, personally, was a republican; just wrote his subject very poorly.
Aha.... those darn missing """"""""""""s.

Here Mag, I got extra """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

[The Xenos]

I wouldn't mind Obama, but I wouldn't vote for him unless he was again Guiliani (God forbid). Maybe Obama over Romney too.

Between Obama and McCain, I'll go McCain.

I most prefer Ron Paul despite some disagreement on Iraq. Though McCain is too far in one direction, Paul is too far in the other. Even Obama is more moderate on Iraq.

Meanwhile, either Hillary and Guiliani running scares the crap out of me.

[Magneto X]

The thread is meant to be in the point of view of the Republican poster, so yeah, I wrote that unclear.


Meanwhile, either Hillary and Guiliani running scares the crap out of me.

Why those two? They seem rather different to me.


The inability to control spending and government growth is a bigger reason to me than Iraq why Bush is a poor president. I mean, if you can't control your own house ... Terry Schiavo ...? Off the radar.

Right now, I have no clue which Republican I'd even care to vote for. I probably won't vote for any of them.

I'm thinking then that we might have low turnout among Republicans.
There are those who argue that elections are mostly about turnout.

If I had to vote for a Democrat, it probably would be Obama. It certainly wouldn't be Herr Shrillary. Aaaaaaand ... I say this having quit the GOP about ... six months back? My feelings would be the same regardless at this point. I have no desire to vote for any one of them, and I'll probably sit out the election.

You don't like any of them? Romney McCain Giuliani Huckabee Thompson ?

The Republican party is bigger than Bush. So is Conservatism. W will go, the GOP and Conservative belief will outlast him, and better representatives of each than Bush are out there. Darned if I know who they are right now though.

Who do you wish was running?

[Samurai]

I'm Republican and have no intention AT ALL of voting for any of the lousy crop of Dem candidates running. I currently plan to vote Guiliani in the primaries because he's more secular on social issues and strong on defense, crime, and economics. Every Rep candidate has their weaknesses and faults, yet I'd vote for any one of them over the Dems running, with the exception of that nut jobber Ron Paul. If by hook or crook he were to somehow get the Rep nomination, I'd just stay home on election day.

[BlairH]

Who do you wish was running?

Me of course!

Out of all the candidates running, I feel that I am the one who -most closely- represents my own views.

[Magneto X]

Right now, I have no clue which Republican I'd even care to vote for. I probably won't vote for any of them. If I had to vote for a Democrat, it probably would be Obama. It certainly wouldn't be Herr Shrillary. Aaaaaaand ... I say this having quit the GOP about ... six months back? My feelings would be the same regardless at this point. I have no desire to vote for any one of them, and I'll probably sit out the election.


A related article:

For Republicans, Falling in Love Is Hard to Do
NYTIMES.COM

HERE’S another way Republican voters tend to be different from Democratic voters: They like — no, love — their presidential candidates. Not always, of course. But from Ronald Reagan to George W. Bush to Dwight Eisenhower, Republicans voters have displayed a zeal for their candidates that Democrats could only envy.

Which is what makes this Republican presidential contest so striking. It is hard to think of another campaign when Republicans have seemed less excited about their choices. That was the unmistakable lesson of the rapid ascension in recent polls of Mike Huckabee, the former governor of Arkansas, the latest in a line of Republican flavors of the month. A New York Times/CBS News poll last week found that none of the Republican candidates — not even the suddenly hot Mr. Huckabee — was viewed favorably by even half of Republican voters.

To some extent, this may be a one-year anomaly, a harsh judgment on a cast of candidates with each hobbled by some failing of character, ideology or record. It is also, no doubt, the latest sign of just how weary rank-and-file Republicans have become of their party. And several Republicans said this could change once the Republicans settle on a nominee, and particularly if the Democrats nominate Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.

But what is worrying Republicans these days is that this tepid rank-and-file reception to the best the party has to offer suggests that the Republican Party is hitting a wall after dominating American politics for most of the last 35 years. Republican voters are reacting to — or rather, not reacting to — a field of presidential candidates who have defined their candidacies with familiar, even musty, Republican promises, slogans and policies.

“Our party generally has grown stale in its message and we’re not as tuned in as we once were,” said Senator Lamar Alexander, a Tennessee Republican who sought his party’s presidential nomination in 1996 and 2000. “We’re repeating words and phrases that were from the 1980s, rather than looking ahead to 2008. We haven’t been as original and fresh in our presentation as we ought to be. We have been applying our old principles to new circumstances. The world is new.”

Richard Lowry, the editor of the conservative magazine National Review, said the field “has been less than the sum of its parts.”

“The debate among these guys has been so unedifying and so backward looking,” he said. “It’s all, ‘who did what wrong seven years ago.’ They are also not talking about the future, which is a sign of a deeper Republican malaise. The Republican Party has run out of intellectual steam and good ideas.”

[The Xenos]

Every Rep candidate has their weaknesses and faults, yet I'd vote for any one of them over the Dems running, with the exception of that nut jobber Ron Paul. If by hook or crook he were to somehow get the Rep nomination, I'd just stay home on election day.

See, I like voting for the crazy people. They might be crazy enough to find a solution for things in this government. And funny, I thought the republicans used to complain that the Dems were for big government, not it seems the Reps are all gung ho for big brother as well.

I will say that I don't agree fully with everything Paul has to say or to the extreme he does, but I admire his commitment to the eventual ideal of smaller federal government. Meanwhile, I'd prefer most of the Reps over Obama who would be the only Dem I could stomach.

[Samurai]

See, I like voting for the crazy people. They might be crazy enough to find a solution for things in this government. And funny, I thought the republicans used to complain that the Dems were for big government, not it seems the Reps are all gung ho for big brother as well.

I will say that I don't agree fully with everything Paul has to say or to the extreme he does, but I admire his commitment to the eventual ideal of smaller federal government. Meanwhile, I'd prefer most of the Reps over Obama who would be the only Dem I could stomach.

I am for smaller, less intrusive govt and lower taxes. It's one of my major disappointments with Bush and the Republican-led Congress of a few years ago. But Ron Paul would be incredibly dangerous both for the US and the world with his extreme isolationist and non-interventionist policies. I believe it would be seen as a very rare opportunity and a green light for China to take back Taiwan, North Korea to attack SK, Iran and others to attack Israel, etc... chaos all over the world because Ron Paul is telling EVERYBODY the same thing that was told to Saddam before he attacked Kuwait... "it isn't our concern, we have no intention of interfering in anything you do..."

[Magneto X]

Ron Paul is telling EVERYBODY the same thing that was told to Saddam before he attacked Kuwait... "it isn't our concern, we have no intention of interfering in anything you do..."

And if Bush I had done what he had told Saddam, and let Saddam take back Kuwait for Iraq, just how enormously horrible would that have been for the average Kuwaity seeing that Kuwait was a hereditary monarchy with it's own major women's rights and human rights abuses?

[Samurai]

And if Bush I had done what he had told Saddam, and let Saddam take back Kuwait for Iraq, just how enormously horrible would that have been for the average Kuwaity seeing that Kuwait was a hereditary monarchy with it's own major women's rights and human rights abuses?

IMO it would have been very bad, Saddam was a damn sight worse than the relatively moderate and western Kuwaiti govt, and Saddam had a long history of purges and mass executions in the thousands. The incredible joy of the Kuwaiti's at being liberated spoke volumes about the danger they felt they were in.

And the same thing would happen the world over if an absolute non-interventionist/isolationist like Paul were elected.

[mattx110]

IMO it would have been very bad, Saddam was a damn sight worse than the relatively moderate and western Kuwaiti govt, and Saddam had a long history of purges and mass executions in the thousands. The incredible joy of the Kuwaiti's at being liberated spoke volumes about the danger they felt they were in.

And the same thing would happen the world over if an absolute non-interventionist/isolationist like Paul were elected.
And then Bush said "Rise up against Sadam, we're here".

and they rose up.

and Bush said "but... no thanks, good luck with uprising k thx.... XOXO"

[Samurai]

And then Bush said "Rise up against Sadam, we're here".

and they rose up.

and Bush said "but... no thanks, good luck with uprising k thx.... XOXO"

Yeah, I know, and it's the main reason I hate Bush Sr. He betrayed those Iraqis willing to stand up to Saddam, turned his back on them and let them be slaughtered. It's one big reason why the Iraqis were so hesitant to trust Bush Jr when he said "we're here to stay until you get back on your feet, we're not going to leave in a week and turn you back over to Saddam or the Baathists." And it's also a reason why we owed the Iraqi people to liberate them from Saddam.

[Magneto X]

IMO it would have been very bad, Saddam was a damn sight worse than the relatively moderate and western Kuwaiti govt

You're right that Saddam was a brutal dictator, of course, but - a religious hereditary monarchy where women can't vote is "moderate" and Western"?

[mattx110]

Yeah, I know, and it's the main reason I hate Bush Sr. He betrayed those Iraqis willing to stand up to Saddam, turned his back on them and let them be slaughtered. It's one big reason why the Iraqis were so hesitant to trust Bush Jr when he said "we're here to stay until you get back on your feet, we're not going to leave in a week and turn you back over to Saddam or the Baathists." And it's also a reason why we owed the Iraqi people to liberate them from Saddam.
Because Saddam was a secular leader and served as a stabilizing force against Iran and the religious political leaders that we could never in good conscience ally ourselves with.

Not that conscience came into it.

But letting Sadam keep his country kept a lot of people from dying. It's sad. But I dunno, maybe I'll just let our old pal Dick Cheney back me up. umm... do I need to find the link to a youtube video or can I safely assume that someone politically aware like yourself already saw the clip of Cheney (ver. 1.0) claiming that to depose Saddam and enter a war with Iraq would have caused instability in the region for the forseeable future...

[Samurai]

Because Saddam was a secular leader and served as a stabilizing force against Iran and the religious political leaders that we could never in good conscience ally ourselves with.

Not that conscience came into it.

But letting Sadam keep his country kept a lot of people from dying. It's sad. But I dunno, maybe I'll just let our old pal Dick Cheney back me up. umm... do I need to find the link to a youtube video or can I safely assume that someone politically aware like yourself already saw the clip of Cheney (ver. 1.0) claiming that to depose Saddam and enter a war with Iraq would have caused instability in the region for the forseeable future...

I've seen it, and IMO he was parroting the Bush Sr. talking points. And if we had no intention of going in, Bush Sr shouldn't have encouraged them to revolt. He should have told them up front that while we hope they can depose Saddam on their own, they won't receive any support from the US, and they'll be all on their own. If they want to take that risk anyway, good luck. If not, then lay low and bide your time, and maybe someday the political climate will change.

[cactusmaac]

You're right that Saddam was a brutal dictator, of course, but - a religious hereditary monarchy where women can't vote is "moderate" and Western"?

They can now.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4552749.stm

[Wesley Dodds]

They can now.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4552749.stm

Many of these had argued that Islamic law prohibited women from positions of leadership.

The amendment requires women voters and candidates to abide by Islamic law.

Um.

[Arilou]

Ron Paul is well.... A nutter.
You can say what you want about Bush and foreign policy, but at least he had some people who had been *near* the issues. They might have a warped perception of it (stuck in the cold war a bit, trigger-happy, overestimatiing all sorts of things) but at least he had a few friends who knew the basic shape of foreign policy.

Ron Paul, doesen't give that kind of impression *at all*. I could see him being a good, even great, governor if you like that kind of person. But if the american voters lets a conspiracy theorist who believes that building a highway to Texas is somehow the prelude to a North American Union, who wants to break international treaties like they were bowling appointments, and who generally doesen't seem to have the faintest idea about the world, or the american position (for good and bad) in it.... That'd be a disaster.

[Nitmo]

Many of these had argued that Islamic law prohibited women from positions of leadership.

The amendment requires women voters and candidates to abide by Islamic law.

Um.

They can vote, but can't hold office, at least it's a step in the right direction.

[EZMOHR]

As a Republican/Conservative/Whatever you want to call me, I'm just not voting as of right now. Why should I compromise my political/social leanings for a person who will only use his/her job to get another four years and not help or change anything.

And as a Republican/Conservative/Whatever you want to call me, there isn't a Democrat/Liberal/whatever you want to call them running this time that I would vote for either.

Just not really a good crop of canidates that one should believe will change the system or be something different. My world will go on the same as it is, your world will go on the same no matter who is elected.

[Magneto X]

Just not really a good crop of canidates that one should believe will change the system or be something different.

Then who are a couple of conservatives that you wish were running and would enjoy being able to vote for?

[EZMOHR]

Then who are a couple of conservatives that you wish were running and would enjoy being able to vote for?

Once, a looooooooooooooooooong time ago I would have said J.C. Watts, but he kind of, and while I think this term is stupid as hell, it sums him up, "sold out." He used to stand for some decency and trying to change some things, however small, but he's not about that anymore.

As for a person who has never been in politics, I was always a fan of Ken Hamblin, but he kind of "looned" out to never be heard from again.

All in all, the people I once had some hopes for, people J.C.Watts, and yes a democrat, Bill Richardson, have proven over and over to just be about re election and not change.

[Magneto X]

Once, a looooooooooooooooooong time ago I would have said J.C. Watts, but he kind of, and while I think this term is stupid as hell, it sums him up, "sold out." He used to stand for some decency and trying to change some things, however small, but he's not about that anymore.

As for a person who has never been in politics, I was always a fan of Ken Hamblin, but he kind of "looned" out to never be heard from again.

All in all, the people I once had some hopes for, people J.C.Watts, and yes a democrat, Bill Richardson, have proven over and over to just be about re election and not change.

JC Wattts is obviously very intelligent. And, as opposed to some, I think he had enough intellectual integrity to not always go for the cheap shots against his opponents. Towards the end, he seemes more like a tool somehow. A non-white mouthpiece for the GOP leadership. He was appearing on all the Crossfire type shows. Rewards are good and tempting for blacks to go conservative.

[BlairH]

Then who are a couple of conservatives that you wish were running and would enjoy being able to vote for?

Me obviously.