<p>Perhaps HecticLife can create a new post to have her question answered since it seems that those posting here now seem hellbent on flaming with political intent.</p>
<p>Unless she has been scared off already.</p>
<p>Btw Z, congrads on the job -- What is it?</p>
<p>
[quote]
No, you just come off as one of those one dimensional political types in a lot of your posts--everything you see as contrary to your way of thinking must be part of some liberal conspiracy---everything good in American life is the result of the work of one party, everything that goes wrong is the result of the other party's interference with the former's grand plan. In the meantime neither serves the people very well.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yeah. And you're the enlightened above-it-all non-political type who refuses to take a stand on anything but loves going around calling people "one-dimensional" and claiming to care about "serving the people". :rolleyes:</p>
<p>Sorry, but you will NEVER find a CONSERVATIVE badmouthing the military, calling them baby-killers, urging the enlisted to shoot their officers, refusing to allow recruiters into schools or onto college campi, or describing a service academy in the terms I took offense to above.</p>
<p>You DO, however, see LIBERALS doing that ALL THE TIME.</p>
<p>Now, if recognizing REALITY makes me one-dimensional in your book, then I'm supremely happy, although it does make me wonder what dimension(s) you're in.</p>
<p>And no, my party is hardly perfect, but the opposing party is completly wretched and without a single clue or idea of their own except that they hate Bush and the military more than they hate our enemies.</p>
<p>Learn it, live it, love it.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Perhaps HecticLife can create a new post to have her question answered since it seems that those posting here now seem hellbent on flaming with political intent.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No. Just pointing out the truth.</p>
<p>I warned everyone in my earliest posts that I would always speak the truth here. If some are offended, they're just going to have to deal with it. We're talking about my alma mater, my beloved Navy, and the future of the defenses of our great nation. I take no prisoners on those topics. I will call them as I see them, and if the other side of the political aisle can't take the heat, then they'll need to change their positions.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Unless she has been scared off already.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Or was just a drive-by poster. If he/she is a Mid, then I would worry about them being scared off so easily after making such a bold initial statement.</p>
<p>As for the job...... It's a very good one! :D</p>
<p>Sorry, but this IS the internet, you know? ;)</p>
<p>Z, you speak what you see as the truth (as do we all). Don't confuse it with always being one and the same. I am not afraid to see truth coming from both sides when it is there, and the BS coming from both when it is there as well. But I have enough experience now to realize that statements like "ALL the TIME," and "ALWAYS," when describing people or groups of people have little basis in reality and are usually the buzz words of an unenlightened point of view.
Maturity shows us all at one time or another that the truth IS out there, and it is often spoken by the people we disagree with the most.
I wouldn't say I am a non-political type. I vote and support candidates and I have my own "views" on the ways theings should be run. Iam not afraid to vote for candidates of ANY party if I feel they are the best person for the job. I don't let a political party tell me how to think or how to vote. I try not to be blinded by the barrage of political BS being heaved about by both sides these days.</p>
<p>One of the strenghts of our political system is also its greatest weakness. We seldom get to choose among the best qualified candidates for an office. Case in point from our last election.....W or Kerry. What a choice.</p>
<p>I considered the choice far better than you did, but not ideal. </p>
<p>Give me Reagan any day. I wouldn't vote for Kerry to save my soul.</p>
<p>The truth is the truth. Go look it up. Find me ONE example where a Conservative has referred to our troops as torturers, or baby-killers, or akin to the SS. Go on, FIND ONE!</p>
<p>Meanwhile I can rattle off a bunch of LIBERALS (who are the first to play the "Don't you DARE question my patriotism!" card when NAILED with the TRUTH), who HAVE said such things. Kennedy, Gore, Kerry, Durban, Clinton, DeLoro, Conyers, Reid, Rangel, Feinstein, Boxer, Dean, and the list goes on and on.</p>
<p>Have you forgotten that wench from Colorado, Pat Schroder, the one who said, "Hey, any day we can get rid of two admirals is a good day for me!"?</p>
<p>No. I don't question their patriotism, simply because they have none to question. Many of them are outright treasonous, and I'd love to see them executed on the Washington Mall for that crime.</p>
<p>And then they wonder why the military is so overwhelmingly votes against them, and people wonder why they didn't want the absentee ballots (which are overwhelmingly military) counted in Florida.</p>
<p>Spare me. I wore the uniform for 10 years, and I know DAMNED well who was (and is) on OUR side.</p>
<p>Here, Here for the Z-man!!!</p>
<p>Unfortunately, it wasn't Reagan running in 2004 ( I voted for him twice), it was W and we are now dealing with the consequences.
I applaud you for wearing the unform for 10 years. Just don't assume that everyone else that wears the same one thinks as you do. Currently the DOD does not keep records on how soldiers vote. It's estimated that at least among the enlisted men and women the Republicans have slightly less than a 3-2 margin over Democrats. Among the officers it is considerably more than that, but given the enlisted outnumber the officers at least 15-1 the margin of difference really isn't all that great. Even these are just estimates based on absentee ballot info. Personally I don't care which party they vote for, as long as they vote their conscience. In the end their duty is to their nation and to obey the lawful orders of their superiors. Beyond that, I am sure their number one priority is keeping themselves and each other alive. They are best served by leaders who don't just talk the talk but walk it as well.</p>
<p>I am dying to vote for a qualified Republican for president in 2008.</p>
<p>One that understands our role in the world and that of our allies.</p>
<p>One that has at least some intellectual and scientific curiosity (I REMEMBER the moon shots, and the huge advances in science that weren't tethered to one groups idea of what is morally right.)</p>
<p>One that understands economic restraint.</p>
<p>One that understands individual freedoms and seeks to protect them within the law of the land and the framework of our security and safety.</p>
<p>One who makes GOOD decisions, is willing to look at the conclusions of all the data, and doesn't insulate themselves from reality.</p>
<p>One who makes homeland defense a reality on all fronts (ie our borders) rather than his own personal garden from which he can pick and choose what we defend based on political expediancy.</p>
<p>One who doesn't get distracted from the mission---who won't rest until he KNOWS where Bin Laden is and gets him.</p>
<p>John McCain, where are you?</p>
<p>Some of the most dire consequences of Bush's time in office are leftovers from Clinton's eight years of ignorance toward the threat of terrorism and other foreign relation debacles. History will own up to this, just as it will show that the Clinton administration's economic endeavers brought most of the unnecessary investment pain since 2000 at home.</p>
<p>Great that you brought that up, I missed Rush's broadcast yesterday.</p>
<p>
[quote]
John McCain, where are you?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You have GOT to be KIDDING!</p>
<p>You voted for Reagan twice and you want MCCAIN, the man who DEFINES "RINO"?</p>
<p>PLEASE! :o</p>
<p>Oh, and with the exception of Border Security and Fiscal Restraint, W has done everything you listed.</p>
<p>As for the "consequences", I still shudder to think what we would be like today if Al Gore OR John Kerry (who fought in Vietnam, by the way) had been in power.</p>
<p>Osama Bin Laden would most likely be screwing goats in the Oval Office right now...</p>
<p>Hmmm...I haven't listened to Rush since pre 2000 elections. Got to admit, for the short couple of months I caught his broadcasts here and there, I agreed with a very high percentage of his rantings.</p>
<p>I'm listening to him right now.</p>
<p>The Podcast is the best invention since the cluster bomb! :D</p>
<p>Hey everybody, I am definitely not going to try and give input because my political views are elementary compared to you guys. But, as an AP Gov't student, I appreciate this discussion more than you could know. Now, here is an interesting link that I encourage EVERYONE (adults, candidates etc.) to check out. It is a political survey that will tell you your political affiliations. Dont worry, it's short. My Gov. teacher told us to do it. Happy surveying! </p>
<p><a href="http://www.politicalcompass.org/%5B/url%5D">http://www.politicalcompass.org/</a></p>
<p>I already know my political positions! :D</p>
<p>Can't you tell? ;)</p>
<p>Yeah...</p>
<p>Haha, not too obscure...</p>
<p>Took the test & was actually a little surprised where I ended up.</p>
<p>About McCain's reputation as a RINO - what's wrong with a politician voting & acting according to his conscience - as opposed to being a puppet of one party?? Perhaps someone can be conservative in some areas & more moderate in others. Should he then take heat from the ultraconservatives just because he doesn't fall in line with the ENTIRE conservative political agenda? Sometimes it's better to compromise on the smaller issues in order to make gains on the things that really matter - and gaining a seat in the Senate (and thus votes on those bigger issues) is really a bigger pay off in the long run.<br>
It's interesting to contemplate just what would be required in a candidate who could sweep 49 out of 50 states such as Reagan did. Perhaps someone who can further the general conservative agenda while acquiesing just enough to appease the liberals too. This country could use some unity - a pragmatic reublican, which is what some of those "RINO"s are, might be the ticket.</p>
<p>Yeah, that tends to happen. It happened to a lot of the students in my Gov. class. Where were you (if you feel comfertable telling). I was a moderate conservative. About 1 right, 2 up</p>
<p>hbc, that was fun and interesting. Thanks! As I suspected, I'm pretty centerist. Funny to see Saddam and Pope Benedict in the same quadrant. Yikes.</p>
<p>
[quote]
About McCain's reputation as a RINO - what's wrong with a politician voting & acting according to his conscience - as opposed to being a puppet of one party??
[/quote]
</p>
<p>"Puppet", eh?</p>
<p>Tell me then, why this "Republican" is more popular among DEMOCRATS than Republicans?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Perhaps someone can be conservative in some areas & more moderate in others. Should he then take heat from the ultraconservatives just because he doesn't fall in line with the ENTIRE conservative political agenda?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yes, because he's anything but Conservative, laet alone ULTRA-Conservative.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Sometimes it's better to compromise on the smaller issues in order to make gains on the things that really matter - and gaining a seat in the Senate (and thus votes on those bigger issues) is really a bigger pay off in the long run.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What good is having the seat in the Senate if the guy votes with the OTHER side most of the time?</p>
<p>
[quote]
It's interesting to contemplate just what would be required in a candidate who could sweep 49 out of 50 states such as Reagan did.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>BINGO! BE LIKE REAGAN!</p>
<p>Reagan was NOT a moderate. He was a proud, outspoken CONSERVATIVE.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Perhaps someone who can further the general conservative agenda while acquiesing just enough to appease the liberals too.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Impossible, especially with today's liberals. The only way a Conservative can appease a liberal these days is to commit suicide.</p>
<p>
[quote]
This country could use some unity - a pragmatic reublican, which is what some of those "RINO"s are, might be the ticket.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No, we need a REAL CONSERVATIVE.</p>
<p>Oh, how I miss Ronald Reagan! :(</p>
<p>
[quote]
Funny to see Saddam and Pope Benedict in the same quadrant.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So, did Saddam and the Pope take the test?</p>
<p>If so, which one lied? (Hint: Which one is in prison for mass murder?)</p>
<p>If not, the model is broken.</p>