GOP becomes completely irrelevent
 

Let's see, Guiliani supports torture and all war-making. McCain proves he'll say anything to get elected even about Falwell:eek: . Romney is all over the place if not as completely bat shit crazy.

I'm looking at these clowns as they suck up to GW's <30% and see a group determined to give the White House to the Democrats who are already pretending to be moderates. The fight is for the middle and these guys can't find it. Bad times ahead.

I know the <30% and they will still vote anti-abortion and pro-empire, somebody needs to wake them up. It is time to talk about limited government but GOP cred on that subject is gone.

The Dems couldn't find the middle in 2004, and W lied that he was the middle in 2000.

I will say again - there needs to be a third party that is moderate!

Something has to give, bro. We can't afford one party gov.

I was reading about some project recently that actor Sam Waterston (Jack McCoy on L&O) is involved in to create a true moderate third party.

Ya know, Dana made this comment last month that just didn't sound right to me. I mean, no disrespect to her...to each his own, y'know? But IMO, this kind of thinking is what has gotten us in trouble here in the States in the first place. I think too often, we look through the winged goggles and don't really look at the issues. If we did so, I think we'd be a more truly moderate society...as opposed to one that is moderate because the left and right cancel each other out.

All the Republicans are the same and the Democrats have a little diversity but not a lot, typical.

The best canidates, in my opinion, are the ones we never hear of.

Do...do you mean that what this country needs is Radar? :eek:

Are you talking about the Cellar Radar or making a MASH comment?

How would MASH Radar help?

I mean the Cellar Radar.

The MASH Radar could help just with his awesome filing skilz.

Plus his amazing ability to hide the stump of his missing finger from the camera.

I actually don't know Radar's views.

You could all just vote for me instead.

*steals spotlight*

You put that right back!

The most heated moment in the debate, which aired live on the conservative Fox News network, came when the former New York mayor and current GOP front-runner angrily refused to entertain a serious discussion about the role that actions taken by the United States prior to the September 11, 2OO1, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon may have played in inspiring or encouraging those attacks.

Giuliani led the crowd of contenders on attacking Texas Congressman Ron Paul after the anti-war Republican restated facts that are outlined in the report of the The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States.

It is very unlikely that the GOP is ready for this dicussion.

The actions that encouraged those attacks are those of the Clinton Administration, whose foreign policy is a study in cluelessness. It was not an improvement on the Carter Administration's. This same weakness, inadequacy, and general incompetence continues to be desired by the Democrats. As if the Democrats have won any wars since Truman. They should talk? No, the Republicans are more worthy of the Republic's trust on this. They actually try and win, which seems only right.

So what you're saying is that authoritarians that win wars by becoming the enemy are preferable to libertarians that don't kill people?

Far right.

Seems to me the Republican candidates, that are sucking up the the Neocons and Religious zealots, can tell them both to fuck off after the primaries. Who are they gonna vote for ... a Democrat?

That's a fact jack... well done.

Ibram, every controversial action taken by the Bush Administration has been of the nature of taking on war powers, without having the convenience of Congress having declared a state of war, which is something that frees up the Executive to employ sweeping decrees in aid of the war effort and no questions asked -- like Lincoln's suspending habeas corpus for the duration.

Within US jurisdiction, suspension of habeas corpus is not contemplated by this Administration. There are those who want this applied to foreign nationals -- not remotely citizens of these United States -- held as what are in effect if not in the precise letter of the law prisoners of war. Nobody charges prisoners of war with crimes with good cause (North Vietnam tried it for propaganda purposes, just one more of myriad Communist sins, bad behavior, and shittiness.) in any case, yet the defeat-America BAF'ers will insist we do this. Their motivations are as obvious as they are basely antidemocratic.

This is not "becoming the enemy" except by rumors spread by those Bush-haters who will lie in the most promiscuous and unscrupulous fashion about the war effort, simply because we've got a Republican President. These people have their priorities so completely out of whack that only the whacked listen to them, I can say from my 51-year-old perspective. I regard the opposition not as principled persons, but as mental masturbators -- and fascist-sympathizing jackoffs at that, given who they refuse to support, and thus whom, by default, they end up supporting. Note that I do not get that muddled up -- ever. Note too that some people around here are that muddled up.

Sounds like you think the only people who actually work in the Republic's interest are the far right. You sure about that?

Why is that? Why do you think the three branches, ie checks and balances, was created?
So a wacko president can't go tilting at windmills?

Well this wacko is tilting at windmills by circumventing the theory and practice that has made the Great Experiment successful.
He's a bad man... a very, very bad man.

Please note the distinction that Lincoln was involved in a civil war.

Also, that exact argument has been used by Saddam Hussein, Kim Jong Il, and even to an extent by Vladimir Putin. Many tyrants in the beginning are given their power democratically, either by assent or lack of dissent.

To an extent it even works. Noone has invaded North Korea in almost a century, and Saddam Hussein kept Iran and his other neighbors at bay. The people were perfectly safe from outside threats and outmatched any regional opponents except for superpowers like China. Ask them if it was worth it.

Democracy means assuming risk in exchange for freedom. Tyranny means better protection from outside threats in exchange for institutionalized oppression from within.

Our three branch government was the best failsafe our forefathers could assemble. Messing with it for the illusion of additional security is like trying to get a better picture from your TV by removing the back and sticking in a screwdriver.

How would anyone know? they have never gotten more than .02% of the vote. Hardley a boil on the ass of the electorate!

Whereas if someone like Bush gets %49 they can become a persistent staph infection or even work their way up to a venereal disease.;)

I could not disagree with that statement.