What's bad? Going to the RNC Convention? No, I wouldn't get upset if a Republican went to the DNC convention. It's their career, they can do with it what they wish.

I guess the difference is that I'm not married to the Republican or any other party so it doesn't really bother me when things happen inside the party. I guess you are much more loyal to the Democrats. I certainly don't take anything that happens in politics personally or think it's "bad".

Our political system is a long way from operational. It is a crooked sham of what it used to be and what it was intended to be. Unfortunately it is also the best system on the planet so I kinda think we have to try and work within it as best we can.

Oh and the multiple :rolleyes: was because that was the best way to display the amount of incredulity I was experiencing over your "Well that dude belonged at the RNC anyway" comment. You seem to get all up in arms over "unfair" political tactics by the Republicans but brush it off as "well they deserved it anyhow" when it comes to the other side of the aisle. Hence the multiple :rolleyes: .

Oh, case in point. Ronald Reagan Jr. is now a big part of the Democratic party and a major talking head on the various cable networks. And I don't feel bad about it at all or think it's wrong.

Well here's a whopper for you...I'm a libertarian.

:)

And he does belong at the RNC. Look at his voting record sometime. I don't just ASSume someone is this or that because of media, I look at their voting record, their view on the issues. That guy is solidly republican.

And I didn't say he "deserved" it. But I'm sorry, those Republican politicians sell out their own:

1. Ryan
2. Powell
3. McCain
4. Lott

Off the top of my head.....

Well, if you are a libertarian then you should think about divorcing yourself from the Democratic Party. I don't pretend to know your personal thoughts on politics but you sure seem to come running to defend the Dems...

I think they both suck.

But Republicans in power suck even worse.

They're socialists, they're socially repressive (not a traditional conservative trait), they're fiscally liberal, they love their socialist corporate and welfare for their pet programs (i.e., religious, etc.).

I don't know what happened to them, but if this was the 1960s, I'd probably be a Republican. They changed.

Socialism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Socialism is an ideology with the core belief that a society should exist in which popular collectives control the means of power, and therefore the means of production. In application, however, the de facto meaning of socialism has changed with time. Although it is a politically-loaded term, it remains strongly-related to the establishment of an organized working class; created through either revolution or by social evolution, with the purpose of building a classless society. Socialism had its origins in the ideals of the Enlightenment, during the Industrial Age/Age of Industrialization, amid yearnings for a more egalitarian society. It has also increasingly become concentrated on social reforms within modern democracies. This concept and the term Socialist may refer to a group of ideologies, an economic system, or a state that exists or has existed.

Now, which party seems to be working towards establishing an organized working class (Unions) and building a classless society (redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor).

Oh yeah, that's the Republicans. I would put a rolleyes here but I know you hate that.

Now the fiscally irresponsible part I can't argue with as I can't stand the spending going on while the Republicans are in power. Heck if a Democrat came along and ran for President on a fiscally conservative platform I might even vote for him (I say him not because I wouldn't vote for a woman, but I sure wouldn't vote for Hilary).

Who reforms welfare? Who creates welfare spending for religious programs to the tune of 1 billion a year?

And for all his faults, the old man clinton was a fiscal conservative.

It's all nothing more than a ruse. The republicans say they're this and that, but in reality, paying attention to spending and allocating over the years, they're no different than the democrats.

The democrats are usually just as bad, but Clinton happened to be not one of them.....

Maybe Murtha is really a Republican. He sure put the liberals in a bad spot when they had to all vote against bringing the troops home.

There's nothing cryptic voicing support for our troops.
Many of us would, without a doubt, drop what we are doing to fight alongside our brothers and sisters. Many, that conscientiously object to the war, and rightfully so, support the troops by fighting the administration for the truth.
But, on the other hand there are some, and I mean the major conservative mouth pieces in this OT, occassionally wear the uniform and are involved in fly-overs and consider themselves a part of the effort, when in reality they're only in it for financial gain with nothing in the way of personal sacrifice. They are the honorless individuals, much like the president, the vice president, and the secretary of defense. How does it feel to be in such esteemed company?

I don't think there's any questioning Murtha's support for his troops.
Murtha is a Marine first which is something the label makers will not and can't understand. Again, I watched MTP and Murtha said that we should redeploy our troops. In addition to other comments he made I understand him to be saying that our troops should be on the outside looking in while the Iraqis take over control of their own destiny. Now, the people that have a problem with this are the ones with the most to lose financially.

Is this supposed to be some pathetic dig at those of us on this BBS who are active duty?

So he is not a democrat or not as bad as the average democrat?

I would disagree with both and can give you as many examples as you would care to read. At least the President did not have Joe Wilson killed.

The Democratic party turned on Gray Davis, the (dis)Honorable Governor of California so fast that his Lt Gov was running against him withing days of the whole idea getting off the ground. You are not going to get far trying to say that the Dems are any great shakes on solidarity or morality, and don't try to tell me that the Republicans say they have been the only ones trying to call themselves moral, simply won't fly.

oc-ca'sion-al-ly, adv. happening now and then; infrequent.

Not when it comes to spending, no. He's fiscally conservative. And Bush, when it comes to spending and other things, is as bad as an average democrat.

Clinton didn't have anyone killed either. What's your point?

You're right. Yea, we have one. Although I'm not quite clear what you think the democratic party itself did here... And you guys can find more, right? Hey, it's possible, but I doubt you'll be able to find many......

I certainly don't think the dems are any more moral than the republicans, just like I don't think the republicans are any more moral than the dems. The republicans want to create some goofy, unattainable "reputation" of morality, and will stop at nothing to keep that nothing-more-than-an-illusion alive.

Oh, so it must be the reservists you are after...what do they know...

They only make up a significant percentage of the deployed force right now...what right do they have to an opinion?

Quit while you're ahead (or at least less behind)...bashing troops never gets you anywhere.

Reservist(s) is stretching it. Those not connected to the good ole' boy club get deployed and they alone deserve our respect and attention. I can't make this any simpler.
Did you review the MTP transcripts so you can at least get the facts right?

Why yes I did review his appearance on MTP. Which fact are you disputing?

Sure is not hard to see that this young child has not ever worn a uniform nor been in the service for this great country!

Please tell us when the "financial gain" is going to be coming our way and just how we are supposed to be getting this? "Honorless individuals" you say? If I were closer a large can of whup a$$ would be opened and when things settled down a bit you might be either in the hospital or on your knees apologizing to the vets of this country.

There are quite a few of us on this forum who either wore a uniform in the past or are still in uniform who would take an extreme exception to the above statement. As well, in my part of the country someone does not talk to a vet like that without expecting to "dance" so to speak. Hope you are ready and you are not going to be leading...

Joe A

PS Try using spell checker as well sometime. Evidently the time you spent in school was a bit wasted. Might have done better in a uniform instead, or did they kick you out?

Joe, thanks for your service. A few weeks ago I had the pleasure of having a gentleman as a student at a DE (you know, where we DRIVE our Porsches on tracks and teach others how to handle their cars, for those liberal who don't have a clue) who had JUST RETURNED FROM IRAQ as a matter of fact, he and his buddy sent their registrations from Iraq. Well, their story doesn't fit the BS that most of the liberals here regurgitate. Of course, liberals don't care what those who are actually there, doing the duty the volunteered for have to say, since 97% of the time it doesn't fit their needs.

This is why I'll never be a "conservative"**

How narrow-minded and hateful can you get? Now, "liberals"** can't even drive, they don't even know what a DE is.

Shove it, you ignorant jerk.



**OT "conservative" = Bush supporter

** OT "liberal" = anyone, and I mean anyone, that disasgrees with an OT "conservative"

CLAP CLAP CLAP.

No kidding. That's how it is in their minds.....

Sadly for them, it's not even accurate. Ahhh, to live in a world like that...