MustangWorks.com : Ford Forums - View Single Post

Mr 5 0 · 02-10-2002, 03:50 PM

Nice to see so many sensible people - and Republicans - around here. No place like home.

Marty:

America is THE superpower. Russia is on it's arse, China can't feed it's people and has a limited nuclear capability and other countries are dangerous but no superpower. We're it.

We're the world's policeman because we're the target of most of the bad guys - it's in our own best interest to protect ourselves - and we're also the only country that has the military might and the money to kick foreign butt halfway around the world and do it in weeks (i.e. Afghanistan and the Taliban).
Clinton wasted the military on 'peacekeeping' missions that just got American soldiers killed; Bush uses the military where and when it's needed, then we get out and let the locals take over. We keep an eye on them (Afganistan) but we don't occupy the country for long.

For all it's faults, you won't do any better than America, Marty, and you're no traitor. Disappointed maybe, but no traitor. Get that idea out of your mind. We all disagree with our government on various issues, but we have that right (First Amendment). That's what makes our country great - freedom.

Chris:

On the surface, you sound like a Libertarian; they advocate personal responsibility - and personal freedom (they want all drugs legalized) as well as smaller government but I've studied the party philisophy and debated with a few Libertarians on the internet (not on this website) and they generally seem to have a utopian view of society and government that clashes with reality, in my opinion.

I can't support them but you would a good prospect for the Libertarians, especially since the Libertarian Party Presidential candidate (Harry Browne) only received about 400,000 votes (.04%) in the 2000 election. I understand that you can't vote, but they need everyone they can get.

I have to disagree regarding legalizing drugs and the damage that would do to a population already ravaged by the negative effects of alcohol. I don't see drugs as the benign substances you do and the concept of solitary stoners, quietly getting high in the privacy of their own homes with no negative effects on the general population is a bit, well, utopian.

That scenario may be true of the people you know, but a legalization of drugs nationwide would see a lot more stoned drivers (who are just as dangerous as drunks - just not as obvious without a test) and other problems we don't need in this country would also grow.
While some would control drug use others would become addicts with all the attendent grief that causes to family and friends trying to help them while they sink into - and die from - drugs.

With all the harm alcohol use has wrought in this country since it's inception, why would we, as intelligent people, wish to unleash yet another addictive and potentially debiliating drug into the mainstream and make it easy and legal to obtain?
I know many use drugs now - illegally - but drugs - and alcohol - do nothing good for anyone, other than detatch one from reality, and we can hardly deal with the problems alcohol has brought us; from dead men, women and children caused by drunken drivers to babies murdered by drunken boyfriends and husbands to robberies and assaults committed by those who were drunk. I cannnot see why we need more and even stronger and addictive intoxicants on the legal market.

That stated, I note that every poll I've ever seen has shown the majority of adult Americans firmly and decisively against legalization of drugs.
I doubt that will change anytime soon and so I see no chance of drugs becoming legal in our lifetime, making the argument moot. Still, worth commenting on.

I agree with Unit about the partisan political bickering being unproductive. It's mostly posing and/or trying to bash the other party or person but - that's politics.
Usually, a Democrat will have one idea that he proposes (i.e. raising taxes) and the Republican will oppose that idea and the fight begins.
Or - vice-versa.
Just as we see on this very forum, pure logic and a focus on facts soon gives way to name-calling and often the questioning of motives and finally, character, all of which accomplish nothing at all.

I believe President Bush has truly tried to set a new tone in Washington and has been somewhat successful. You never hear him or his senior staff attack another politician's character over a disagreement. At least not in public.

Bush has been successful partly because he tries to compromise with the Democrats but never loses his conservative focus. He is trying to do the best for the country (knowing that he won't please everyone) and his high (85%) approval ratings - even five months past the attack on America on September 11th) - show that the President is seen as honest, capable and on the right track. Meanwhile, the Democrats, seeking some issue to exploit in the fall elections, are obstructing the President's proposals in Congress and climbing all over the Enron mess to find something they can blame Bush for. Won't happen.

Sure, Enron gave money to the Bush campaign, but they gave money to practically every politician in the country at one time or another and the Bush Administration did nothing for Enron. No scandal. No 'issue' for the Democrats to yell about.
Enron was a business scandal, not a political one. Guilt by association doesn't work. Just because Enron sent Bush some campaign funds along the way doesn't mean that it was a quid pro quo. It wasn't and thats obvious.

So, yes, I'm a Republican but I do vote for the man and the issues. I don't support the Bush Mexican immigration policy (now dormant after 9/11) or the 'faith-based' initative (nice idea - not workable) and his tax cuts were good, but too small to help the economy .
Still, I cashed my tax rebate check just like everyone else.
The Bush/Kennedy education bill was like adding more deck chairs while the Titanic sinks. Looks nice - accomplishes little.

Well, I said I don't agree with everything the President does.

I predict big Republican gains in the House and Senate this November. Bush is on a roll and the Democrats can only complain about it but are fresh out of ideas and have weak, unpopular leadership. More government intervention doesn't play well right now. 'PC' has taken a big hit, too, thank goodness.

We're a far cry from the constitutional republic we stated out with in 1776, but with George Bush as President, at least we've restored some sanity to the White House and our foreign and domestic policies.

I'm proud to be a Republican and proud of my country and our President.

Flags wave in the breeze as Mr. 5.0 steps down from the podium as the crowd rises to it's feet and erupts in frenzied, sustained applause. Then he wakes up.

02-10-2002, 03:50 PM	#15
Mr 5 0 Conservative Individualist Join Date: May 1997 Location: Wherever I need to be Posts: 7,487	I love the smell of politics in the morning! Nice to see so many sensible people - and Republicans - around here. No place like home. Marty: America is THE superpower. Russia is on it's arse, China can't feed it's people and has a limited nuclear capability and other countries are dangerous but no superpower. We're it. We're the world's policeman because we're the target of most of the bad guys - it's in our own best interest to protect ourselves - and we're also the only country that has the military might and the money to kick foreign butt halfway around the world and do it in weeks (i.e. Afghanistan and the Taliban). Clinton wasted the military on 'peacekeeping' missions that just got American soldiers killed; Bush uses the military where and when it's needed, then we get out and let the locals take over. We keep an eye on them (Afganistan) but we don't occupy the country for long. For all it's faults, you won't do any better than America, Marty, and you're no traitor. Disappointed maybe, but no traitor. Get that idea out of your mind. We all disagree with our government on various issues, but we have that right (First Amendment). That's what makes our country great - freedom. Chris: On the surface, you sound like a Libertarian; they advocate personal responsibility - and personal freedom (they want all drugs legalized) as well as smaller government but I've studied the party philisophy and debated with a few Libertarians on the internet (not on this website) and they generally seem to have a utopian view of society and government that clashes with reality, in my opinion. I can't support them but you would a good prospect for the Libertarians, especially since the Libertarian Party Presidential candidate (Harry Browne) only received about 400,000 votes (.04%) in the 2000 election. I understand that you can't vote, but they need everyone they can get. I have to disagree regarding legalizing drugs and the damage that would do to a population already ravaged by the negative effects of alcohol. I don't see drugs as the benign substances you do and the concept of solitary stoners, quietly getting high in the privacy of their own homes with no negative effects on the general population is a bit, well, utopian. That scenario may be true of the people you know, but a legalization of drugs nationwide would see a lot more stoned drivers (who are just as dangerous as drunks - just not as obvious without a test) and other problems we don't need in this country would also grow. While some would control drug use others would become addicts with all the attendent grief that causes to family and friends trying to help them while they sink into - and die from - drugs. With all the harm alcohol use has wrought in this country since it's inception, why would we, as intelligent people, wish to unleash yet another addictive and potentially debiliating drug into the mainstream and make it easy and legal to obtain? I know many use drugs now - illegally - but drugs - and alcohol - do nothing good for anyone, other than detatch one from reality, and we can hardly deal with the problems alcohol has brought us; from dead men, women and children caused by drunken drivers to babies murdered by drunken boyfriends and husbands to robberies and assaults committed by those who were drunk. I cannnot see why we need more and even stronger and addictive intoxicants on the legal market. That stated, I note that every poll I've ever seen has shown the majority of adult Americans firmly and decisively against legalization of drugs. I doubt that will change anytime soon and so I see no chance of drugs becoming legal in our lifetime, making the argument moot. Still, worth commenting on. I agree with Unit about the partisan political bickering being unproductive. It's mostly posing and/or trying to bash the other party or person but - that's politics. Usually, a Democrat will have one idea that he proposes (i.e. raising taxes) and the Republican will oppose that idea and the fight begins. Or - vice-versa. Just as we see on this very forum, pure logic and a focus on facts soon gives way to name-calling and often the questioning of motives and finally, character, all of which accomplish nothing at all. I believe President Bush has truly tried to set a new tone in Washington and has been somewhat successful. You never hear him or his senior staff attack another politician's character over a disagreement. At least not in public. Bush has been successful partly because he tries to compromise with the Democrats but never loses his conservative focus. He is trying to do the best for the country (knowing that he won't please everyone) and his high (85%) approval ratings - even five months past the attack on America on September 11th) - show that the President is seen as honest, capable and on the right track. Meanwhile, the Democrats, seeking some issue to exploit in the fall elections, are obstructing the President's proposals in Congress and climbing all over the Enron mess to find something they can blame Bush for. Won't happen. Sure, Enron gave money to the Bush campaign, but they gave money to practically every politician in the country at one time or another and the Bush Administration did nothing for Enron. No scandal. No 'issue' for the Democrats to yell about. Enron was a business scandal, not a political one. Guilt by association doesn't work. Just because Enron sent Bush some campaign funds along the way doesn't mean that it was a quid pro quo. It wasn't and thats obvious. So, yes, I'm a Republican but I do vote for the man and the issues. I don't support the Bush Mexican immigration policy (now dormant after 9/11) or the 'faith-based' initative (nice idea - not workable) and his tax cuts were good, but too small to help the economy . Still, I cashed my tax rebate check just like everyone else. The Bush/Kennedy education bill was like adding more deck chairs while the Titanic sinks. Looks nice - accomplishes little. Well, I said I don't agree with everything the President does. I predict big Republican gains in the House and Senate this November. Bush is on a roll and the Democrats can only complain about it but are fresh out of ideas and have weak, unpopular leadership. More government intervention doesn't play well right now. 'PC' has taken a big hit, too, thank goodness. We're a far cry from the constitutional republic we stated out with in 1776, but with George Bush as President, at least we've restored some sanity to the White House and our foreign and domestic policies. I'm proud to be a Republican and proud of my country and our President. Flags wave in the breeze as Mr. 5.0 steps down from the podium as the crowd rises to it's feet and erupts in frenzied, sustained applause. Then he wakes up.