Where Did All The Democrats Go.....

[Martlet]

Originally posted by Airhead
Well, my point was that the brightest guy is the guy who won't show up for a fight. Since both Sixpence and Martlet claimed to have been there I guess we can conclude neither one of them is very bright.

I guess that makes Saddam a genius, then.

[bowser]

So if you're a Republican you're for the war and if you're a Democrat you're against the war?  Seems pretty simplistic.  Maybe it only applies to the ones that can't think for themselves?

You probably don't care but there are a lot of people around the world both for and against the US who haven't a clue what a Democrat or Republican is and could care less.  Wonder how they decided which side to support without a political party telling them how to think.

bowser

[Martlet]

Originally posted by bowser
So if you're a Republican you're for the war and if you're a Democrat you're against the war?  Seems pretty simplistic.

You probably don't care but there are a lot of people around the world both for and against the US who haven't a clue what a Democrat or Republican is and could care less.  Wonder how they decided which side to support without a political party telling them how to think.

bowser

we simplify it to liberal and conservative in those cases.

[Sixpence]

Originally posted by Airhead
Well, my point was that the brightest guy is the guy who won't show up for a fight. Since both Sixpence and Martlet claimed to have been there I guess we can conclude neither one of them is very bright.

Hey, I resemble that remark.

Well, I ate good. We had a good time. Although the bruins game was quite the comedown. (Us Pat Burns fans are conflicted)

[bowser]

"...we simplify it to liberal and conservative in those cases....".

Just two different labels.  Still applies.  My point being, a person's political persuasion whether it be Democrat, liberal, conservative, whatever should have no bearing on whether they support a war or not...unless they can't think for themselves.

If you look outside the US, your labels just don't fit.  It's much too complicated to be divided along partisan lines.

P.S. I always hear everybody saying how "liberal" the media is in the US.  Yet from the coverage we see up here in Canada of the major networks, MSNBC and CNN, the media seems very gung ho and supportive of the war.

bowser

[Sixpence]

Originally posted by bowser
"...we simplify it to liberal and conservative in those cases....".

Just two different labels.  Still applies.  My point being, a person's political persuasion whether it be Democrat, liberal, conservative, whatever should have no bearing on whether they support a war or not...unless they can't think for themselves.

bowser

Well said....................you hoser;)

[Martlet]

Originally posted by bowser
"...we simplify it to liberal and conservative in those cases....".

Just two different labels.  Still applies.  My point being, a person's political persuasion whether it be Democrat, liberal, conservative, whatever should have no bearing on whether they support a war or not...unless they can't think for themselves.

If you look outside the US, your labels just don't fit.  It's much too complicated to be divided along partisan lines.

P.S. I always hear everybody saying how "liberal" the media is in the US.  Yet from the coverage we see up here in Canada of the major networks, MSNBC and CNN, the media seems very gung ho and supportive of the war.

bowser

I agree, but that isn't what you originally said.

Originally posted by bowser
So if you're a Republican you're for the war and if you're a Democrat you're against the war?  Seems pretty simplistic.  Maybe it only applies to the ones that can't think for themselves?

You probably don't care but there are a lot of people around the world both for and against the US who haven't a clue what a Democrat or Republican is and could care less.  Wonder how they decided which side to support without a political party telling them how to think.

bowser

In answer to your original question, you can be Liberal or Conservative without living in the US.

Not all Liberals oppose the war, and not all Conservatives are for it, though.

[Rude]

Originally posted by StSanta
Rude wrote:



I think the exact opposite will happen.

Bush is a self claimed born again Christian. He has massive support from the religious right and they're applying pressure on him.

For some thousand year, the second coming of Christ has been 'very close indeed'. And part of the big plan there is for the land of the Jews to belong to the Jews. In other words, the roadmap for Christ's return must be in place, and that means Israel sitting on that territory.

So not only does he have a very, very powerful Jewish lobby to satisfy - his own brothers and sisters in Christ will try to influence him to keep things as they are - or perhaps some more gains for the Israelis.

Say what you will - the Israelis have treated Palestinians appalingly bad. Sure they're muslims and aye, they got a good deal of true wackos there, but it is also true that there are hard working God fearing men and women there, being opressed by the Israelis. When I say opressed I am not referring to legitimate protective measures, but more to the settlements and all the grievous hurt and pain they bring with them.

No, Blair is gonna push Bush, but Bush is not going to listen. He focuses on one thing at a time and once something has settled in his mind he is too conservative to reevaluate the issue. it is a blessing at times (as in Churchill during war time) but a distinct disadvantage at other times when the situation is neither black nor white.

Only when the US puts sufficient and *real* pressure on Israel will there be peace in that region of the world. But with the political climate right now and the powerful lobbying groups in the US and the money-buys-influence-money-buys-votes system in the US, I think it is unlikely Bush will push something he really doesn't care that much about as long as it matches his personal religious faith.

Much of what you said is true about those who might pressure him....what you don't realize is that he is not motivated by winning in 04, but rather in doing what is right concerning both Isreal and the Palestinians. He want's real change and will give Isreal some choices as well as the Palestinians....so does that mean he will turn his back on Isreal....never. There is a difference between betraying an ally and convincing them of a better way.

He mentioned this effort and committment to that region before one American combat boot ever touched Iraqi soil....stand back and watch....change is coming and it will be peaceful for the most part. Does that mean both parties get all they want? No....both will compromise as Sharon has already stated a few days back....a more meaningful peace will result and for the first time in my memory, the Palestinian people will get a chance at a real future. Arafat is the real enemy of Palestine....he is a crook and is dishonest....never did he want a real peace....rather he want's Isreal gone and breeds hate amongst his people.

If I'm wrong, I'll come back here and admit it....will you?

[Sixpence]

"....so does that mean he will turn his back on Isreal....never"

Absolutely, we've relied on Ireali intelligence for a long time. When you are surrounded by enemies like they are, you'de better have good intelligence, or you won't be around too long.

That being said, if Bush can succeed in creating a palestinian state, he can go a long way towards peace. Not to mention cementing his place in history. One big sticking point is Jerusalem. Which brings me to this question. I'm not familiar with the region, but is it possible for Jerusalem to be part of a neutral border between Isreal and a palestinian state? I mean, if Jerusalem is the center of the universe for all religions, should it belong to anyone? Maybe i'm not being a realist, but when I was a kid, if we couldn't share a toy, no one got to play with it. Just a thought.

[StSanta]

Will do Rude, that's fair enough.

I somehow doubt that a President will be thinking more about what is Right than he will about reelection. If Bush does indeed do this, then there are tons of people that'll push him to reconsider since *their* jobs are on the line as well.

Bush is in an advantageous situaton to settle things right now. Twice has the American might been demonstrated to the world. Internationally, everyone knows Americans are angry and fed up and in no mood to hear any bull****e. If he elects to use the momentum he has built, peace between Israelis and Palestinians can be achieved.

I very much hope yer right bud. FWIW, Bush has proven himself to be more autonomous and less of a puppet than what I expected him to be. If he has enough control remains to be seen - I suspect there is a lot of tugging and showing going on in the background.

I'll just hope for the best.

[Eagler]

over 70% approval rating