Presidential Candidates and The Constitution / Bill of Rights.

[Tallpine]

And I don't know what good it does the nation to heap so much criticism on the man, when that can only lead to a Democratic administration.

Then what should one do ... praise him for awful decisions just to keep the Democrats at bay


And looking at the current crop of "Republican" hopefuls, if Rudy is the front runner then we are in a "heap of trouble"

[Perd Hapley]

No, I think we should keep things in perspective.  The attacks that conservatives level at Bush just seem over the top, and I think they should keep in mind what effect that will have on discouraging Republican voters (even if we do get a good candidate) and on swing voters.

On the other hand, I do want the Republican party to understand that moderates like Bush, Bush and Dole are no longer acceptable candidates.  Maybe all the conservative Bush-bashing will get that point across.  But, given that Romney and Guliani seem to be the front-runners, maybe not. 

[Paddy]

Please forgive me, but I have been taking out some frustrations on you, which was not fair.  You see, I've had my fill of folks twice my age, whose view of history is shorter and shallower than my own.  Maybe I expect too much of people.

Translation: "If you don't agree with me, your view of history is short and shallow".
If you're half my age, you've been voting for about 12 years, two presidential election cycles.  Possibly GWB is the only POTUS you've ever voted for?  Maybe that explains why you seem to be so invested in him.

I've been voting since 1968 (would have voted Goldwater in 1964, but the voting age was 21 back then).  Voted straight Republican until 1992, Republican again to the present day. During that time, I've seen the Republican party morph into big spending liberty grabbing money filching whores.  Democrats have become wild eyed spittle flying America hating statists.  I want nothing to do with either of them.

But I can, with clear conscience, correct you on this point.  It is simply not reasonable to claim that rights can be infringed to "preserve the union," while saying that combating terrorism is not a "noble cause."

I invite you, once again, to explain how the U.S. military adventure in Iraq 'combats terrorism'.

[Bogie]

Guys, it's no longer about leadership. It's about media perception and electability.
 

[Perd Hapley]

Riley, what are you trying to prove by giving me your voting record?  If you want to compare, I voted Constitution Party in '96, and for Bush the last two times.  Unlike you, I do not have a history of voting straight Republican, though I have no quarrel with those who do. 

But I can, with clear conscience, correct you on this point.  It is simply not reasonable to claim that rights can be infringed to "preserve the union," while saying that combating terrorism is not a "noble cause."

I invite you, once again, to explain how the U.S. military adventure in Iraq 'combats terrorism'. 

I thought we were talking about the PATRIOT Act, the so-called domestic wire-tapping, etc.  I wasn't talking about Iraq.  I invite you, once again, to explain why Lincoln gets a pass, but Bush does not.  Why are you so invested in Lincoln? 

[Paddy]

I thought we were talking about the PATRIOT Act, the so-called domestic wire-tapping, etc.  I wasn't talking about Iraq.

Translation: "I can come up with some semi plausible BS for the PA's and illegal surveillance, but (like Bush and the admin) I got nothin' when it comes to Iraq."

I invite you, once again, to explain why Lincoln gets a pass, but Bush does not

Lincoln's been dead for 142 years; Bush is currently POTUS.  Lincoln accomplished his goal.  Bush has not.

Now answer my question.

Thanks.   

[Perd Hapley]

I thought we were talking about the PATRIOT Act, the so-called domestic wire-tapping, etc.  I wasn't talking about Iraq.

Translation: "I can come up with some semi plausible BS for the PA's and illegal surveillance, but (like Bush and the admin) I got nothin' when it comes to Iraq."

I invite you, once again, to explain why Lincoln gets a pass, but Bush does not

Lincoln's been dead for 142 years; Bush is currently POTUS.  Lincoln accomplished his goal.  Bush has not.

Now answer my question.

Thanks.   

Translation:  I can't comprehend what fistful is actually saying, so I'll just assume he is defending Bush and the war again, and blather about that. 

Riley, I have already said that Bush infringed civil liberties by signing McCain-Feingold.  I did not say it was acceptable for him to infringe rights via the Patriot Act and other means.  I said that I haven't been convinced that that is happening. 

If you want to have a real debate with me on civil liberties or Iraq, you will have to learn to separate one issue from another, and deal with one thing at a time.  When I ask a question, just answer it.  Or if I answer a question, just take it as an answer for that question.  Don't assume that everything I say is some attempt to defend Bush or the war.  I am not in lockstep with either, I just find your criticism to be unwarranted. 

Translation: "If you don't agree with me, your view of history is short and shallow".

Did you catch any of the back and forth between Revdisk and me?   

[Paddy]

Did you catch any of the back and forth between Revdisk and me?

Yes.  Revdisk used the work 'irregardless' twice.  There is no such word and I subsequently lost interest in anything else he had to say.  You then admitted you don't know much about Bush's usurpations of power.

Don't assume that everything I say is some attempt to defend Bush or the war.  I am not in lockstep with either, I just find your criticism to be unwarranted.

The Bush Administration has presided over the single largest increase in federal power and single largest infringement of individual liberty in history, yet my criticism is unwarranted?

OK 

The bloom is off the rose of the GWB Admin; it's clear to anyone who's paying attention that Iraq is nothing more than a pump 'n dump scheme.  And we (suckers) are falling for it.

[RevDisk]

Did you catch any of the back and forth between Revdisk and me?

Yes.  Revdisk used the work 'irregardless' twice.  There is no such word and I subsequently lost interest in anything else he had to say.  You then admitted you don't know much about Bush's usurpations of power.

Not that I wish to interrupt you two, but I'd like to point out that 'irregardless' is indeed a word.  Just a nonstandard one that does not conform to proper structure.  My last CO added more than one piece of paper to my personnel jacket with almost exactly the same phrase.  Anywho.  I happen to like it, so I use it.  I'm known to use "ain't" on occassion too.  Though not near any English teacher.  They seem to have a pathological hatred of that word.

ir·re·gard·less  –adverb Nonstandard. regardless. 

[Origin: 1910–15; ir-2 (prob. after irrespective) + regardless]


—Usage note Irregardless is considered nonstandard because of the two negative elements ir- and -less. It was probably formed on the analogy of such words as irrespective, irrelevant, and irreparable. Those who use it, including on occasion educated speakers, may do so from a desire to add emphasis. Irregardless first appeared in the early 20th century and was perhaps popularized by its use in a comic radio program of the 1930s.
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.

Please continue, I am finding much entertainment with this thread thus far. 

[Perd Hapley]

OK, Riley, you go on thinking that Bush is a tyrant and his war is a big waste.  I just happen to disagree.  And since I put more trust in my judgment than in yours, I'm OK with that. 


Oh, and the point about RevDisk was that he disagrees with me, yet I noted that he does not seem to have a shallow view of history. 

[Paddy]

fistful wins!  It's so much easier to lay down a non sequitur than to deal with the issue.   

[Perd Hapley]

OK, Riley, if you'd like to deal with the issues, then answer the questions I asked of you.  And then go back to that Ron Paul thread, and answer the questions you ran from there. 

And look up the term "non sequitir" while you're at it.  Use it correctly next time. 

[Paddy]

There are no questions from you in this thread.  I'll check the Ron Paul thread and answer any questions you posed.

"non-sequitir?  BWAHAHHAAHAAA!

[LadySmith]

I've seen the Republican party morph into big spending liberty grabbing money filching whores.  Democrats have become wild eyed spittle flying America hating statists.  I want nothing to do with either of them.

That about sums up my thoughts and feelings on current politicians.
Wake me up when there's a "We'll leave you the heck alone" party.

[Perd Hapley]

I invite you, once again, to explain why Lincoln gets a pass, but Bush does not.  Why are you so invested in Lincoln?

And did you think there was only one Ron Paul thread? 
http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=8164.msg134345#msg134345


And please point out the non sequitur in my above post. You can spell it correctly, but do you know what it means?   

[helpless]

If you're half my age, you've been voting for about 12 years, two presidential election cycles.  Possibly GWB is the only POTUS you've ever voted for?  Maybe that explains why you seem to be so invested in him.

I've been voting since 1968 (would have voted Goldwater in 1964, but the voting age was 21 back then).  Voted straight Republican until 1992, Republican again to the present day. During that time, I've seen the Republican party morph into big spending liberty grabbing money filching whores.  Democrats have become wild eyed spittle flying America hating statists.  I want nothing to do with either of them.

I am 28 years old and I think about this often when learning and forming opinions on politics. A few friends are a few years younger then myself and then there is my father and father in law who have very different views.

It helps me to keep in mind that even though I might think I have it all figured out I am basically a noob and lack experience when it comes to understanding government.

One thing I do know is my father and father inlaw both seem to have a better grasp on things then my younger friends who have voted maybe once or twice.