And point out to you all, that I am not required ever to choose and should I choose to choose, there are 18 months before I need worry with it.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't let teen idols and recording artist or radio talk show propaganda artist tell me what to do about voting.
It is my option.
I value it very much.
And I do not make a choice on the slender (and too often slander) and slip-shod information so far available. To do so is to guarantee you won't be making a rational and educated decision.
You, rimasco, have the very same optopn that I do, which includes the option to choose to waste it with a premature (immature?) choice. Suit yourself.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
Thanks for the links Bdgee. They were very helpful, however, I was mostly looking for any thoughts or opinions of him from people who live in the 14th District, or in Texas. Sometimes certian news or information about these guys don't make it past the local and state news.
-------------------- One is never completely useless. One can always serve as a bad example. Posts: 2430 | From: CA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks Bdgee.... I did notice he was the ONLY Republican to vote AGAINST the war with Iraq.
-------------------- One is never completely useless. One can always serve as a bad example. Posts: 2430 | From: CA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by bdgee: To the muslim terrorist and the Arab peoples, what you think of as freedom and democracy is oppression by an ungodly system.
You can't seem to get it through your head that you are insisting that they abdicate their beliefs and culture in order to assume what to them is a foreign and insulting scheme better suited to a life of sin in Hell. To them your certainty that your way is right and their's wrong only makes us and out ways appear arrogant and uncivil........much as you would feel of them if they insisted that you assume their practices and laws.
How dare we demand they respect our culture when we refuse to respect theirs?
Amen Bdgee!! You hit it right on the head.
-------------------- If it wasn't for bad luck I'd have no luck at all. Posts: 1529 | From: Tacoma WA | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
I want more descriptions of the scenery and the happenings and such as you travel the lines and how it effect the loads you carry and I want more of your interpretations about things that you notice or don't.
That's good stuff, ladd....
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
In other words, it's too dang early to be choosing and closing the mind.
(The last statement may be {hehehehe will be?) ignored by the band-wagoneers and party liners, who too often polute our elections so that the good drop out, leaving the rest of us washing in a tide of hype and slander and electorial mediocrity.)
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by bdgee: And I do not make a choice on the slender (and too often slander) and slip-shod information so far available. To do so is to guarantee you won't be making a rational and educated decision.
You, rimasco, have the very same optopn that I do, which includes the option to choose to waste it with a premature (immature?) choice. Suit yourself.
I simply stated who I like "SO FAR". This meaning if the elections were held tomorrow. To be honest im not totally sold on any of the above, yet......
-------------------- "Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication" Posts: 4005 | From: Shaolin | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by NaturalResources: Thanks Bdgee.... I did notice he was the ONLY Republican to vote AGAINST the war with Iraq.
i paid close attention to him in the debate cuz you brought him up...
i agree with alot of what he said, but he's just little tooooo libertarian for me...
i think he brings good stuff to the table to be argued over, but i'm not sure i could vote for him yet...
Yeah I'm not saying I'll vote for the guy either, but the more I read about him, the more I like him. He does seem a bit too libertarian on some issues but, like you said, he does bring a lot good points to the table, more than I hear from the other candidates.
If you have time and are interested, check out this eleven part video of him speaking about Neo-Conservatives. It is a bit of a pain to watch it split up into 2-4 minute clips, but worth it IMO.
-------------------- One is never completely useless. One can always serve as a bad example. Posts: 2430 | From: CA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I voted for Ron Paul in 1988 when he was running on the libertarian ticket. I won't be voting for him in 2008. It's kind of cool that someone like him can get elected to congress, but he's too crazy to be president.
At this point I have no idea who I'll support. Giuliani is too authoritarian (you think Bush acts like a monarch? He's a piker next to Giuliani). Obama is too inexperienced. I don't much like Clinton, but she's a smart aggressive campaigner, don't count her out.
What little I know of Fred Thompson, I like. Same goes for Bill Richardson. But I don't know nearly enough about either yet to say if I'd actually vote for one of them.
-------------------- Me Trade Pretty One Day. Posts: 815 | From: NYC | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by glassman: me too.. a true conservative doesn't try to force themself between someone else and God...
One thing I know about Rudy...hes a great "interpreter" of the law. He may have been a little harsh somtimes....but I know it was NEVER for personla gain.
-------------------- "Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication" Posts: 4005 | From: Shaolin | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rudy's stated stand on abortion seems to be mine......at least until a new wind blows.....
I'm not too pleased with his position on the 2nd amendment, If I hearde it correctly. I would expect a little consistancy from a person that thinks himself worthy of a vote for president. If he thinks gun ownership violates his personal morals, thenhe needen't own any. Why, when he has already made a parallel decision on abortion, can't he respect my right to not be morally opposed to gun ownership?
If women have a right to decide, why not me?
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Please dont compare Rudy to Kerry... and please stop posting half-truths...relax, judging by his stance the people of fort worth will still be able to purchase a shoulder fired rpg from their local walmart.
"The former mayor told Hannity that gun control was "appropriate" for the city, but that states and cities should be allowed to make those decisions locally."
"So," Hannity continued, "you would support the state's rights to choose on specific gun laws?"
"Yes, I mean, a place like New York that is densely populated, or maybe a place that is experiencing a serious crime problem, … maybe you have one solution there and in another place, more rural, more suburban, other issues, you have a different set of rules."
Apparently, in Giuliani's America law-abiding citizens in large cities would not enjoy the same constitutional liberties as the rest of the country. Why? Are city dwellers not as trustworthy as country folks?
Coming from a City dweller.... my answer, HELL NO!
I can live with that answer as well...
-------------------- "Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication" Posts: 4005 | From: Shaolin | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I like his answer on abortion I myself am morally against it.
free choice is the only legal answer for people in a free society.
In reality women have always got an abortion if they wanted one,might as well make it safe for them to do under good conditions without the guilt that they are breaking the law.
Just becase I agree with Giuliani on the subject of abortion does not me I support him at all
Posts: 6008 | From: phoenix az | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Please dont compare Rudy to Kerry... and please stop posting half-truths."
Now there is a glaring half truth!
Where did I miss the person here comparing Kerry to Rudy? I don't see any and, really, can't imagine any it would be suggested that there was. (Didn't Giuliani, though at excactly the age to be drafted and sent to S.E. Asia, manage somehow to avoid military service, while Kerry volunterred and did serve in Viet Nam? Comparison?)
Look in the mirror when you say, "and please stop posting half-truths.", which is like a loaded question and implies yet another half truth.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
"This war is lost". Sen. majority leader Harry Reid recently proclimed. That pessimism about Iraq is now widley shared by his colleagues. But many arent being quite honest about why theve radically changed their views of the war. Most of the serious Democratic presidentialcnadidates - Sens Hillary Clinton, Joe biden and Chris dodd, and ex-sen John Edwards- once voted, along with Reid, to authorize the war. Now they find themselves under assault by a Democratic base that demands apologies. Only Edwards had siad hes sorry for his vote of support. But if the Democratic party is now almost uniformly anti-war, it is also understandable why it cant find a singlemajor presidential candidate who was in Congress when it counted and tried to stop the invasion. After all, responsible Democrats in national office had been convinced by Bill Clinton for eight years and then G W Bush for two tahat Saddams Iraq was both a conventional and terrorist threat to america and its alies. Most in Congress accepted that Saddam was a genocidal mass murderer. They knew he used his petrodollars to acquire dangerous weapons. And they felt his savagery was intolerable in a post-9/11 world. He gave money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers and offered sanctuary to terrorists like Abu Abbas and Abu Nidal. In other words, Democrats, like most others, wanted Saddam taken out for a variety of reasons beyond fears of WMD's. Moreover, it was the Clinton-appointed CIA Director George Tenet who supplied both Democrats and Republicans in Congress with much of the intelligence they would later cite in deciding to attack Saddam. When both Congress voted to go along with President Bush, it even crafted 23 formal causes for war. So far only the writ concerning the fear of WMD's has been proven false. But we no longer hear much about these various reasons why the Democrats understandably supported Saddam's removal. Instead, they now most often plead they were hoodwinked by sneaky warmongering neocons or sexed up intelligence reports. There is nothing wrong with changing your mind - but the public at least deserves a sincere explanation for this radical about face. So why come clean about their changes of heart? Many Democrats apparently think that claiming they were victimized by Bush and the neocons is more palatable than confessing to their own demoralization with the news from the front. Others may fear that admitting publicly that a disheartened America should not or cannot finish a conflict would send a dangerous message to our enemies. So while they accuse Bush if being hardheaded and unwavering on Iraq, theyre still afraid that their own mea culpas would send an equally dangerous message of inconsistency abroad. Democrats need to admit the truth: That removing a dangerous Saddam Hussein and promoting democracy in his place seemed a good idea to them in 2003-04 when the cost appeared tolerable. Now, in 2007, with over 3,000 Americans lives lost in Iraq, they feel differently. In other words, Democrats could argue that smoewhere along the line they either lost confidence in the United States very ability to stabilize Iraq, or came to feel that even if we could, it was no longer worth the tab in American blood and treasure. That confession could, of course, be muanced with exculpatory arguments about the mistakesmade by those in the Bush administration, such as: "Our necessary war that I voted for to remove Saddam worked; your optionalone to stay on to promote democracy didnt" Such an explanation would be transparentand invite a public discussion. And it would certainly be more legitmate than the prostestations of "the neocons made me do it". With America still engaged in a tough war, that kind of excuse-making just doesnt cut it.
-------------------- "Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication" Posts: 4005 | From: Shaolin | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
