Any other Republicans thinking of voting Obama?

Parent Cafe
81

<p>I will keep this discussion about the issues relevant to the elction of a president (let’s not get into the whole "fetus/embryo/human life debate again) .</p>

<p>Whatever your view on abortion, I still think the PRESIDENT and our NATION, as a whole, should not condone it. “We” should stand for the greater ideals of Life, Liberty, Democracy, Non-Torture, etc. </p>

<p>Yes, I still believe in that “Shining City on the Hill” where America represents that which is “right” and “good” in the world. Call me an idealist - that’s ok, but if “America” won’t defend the rights of the voiceless, the downtrodden or the oppressed, who will?</p>

<p>Yes, sometimes we have to fight. When we are attacked we have to defend ourselves. al qaida had already attacked us & declared a Holy War. By going into Iraq we accomplished several goals:

  • We moved the battlefield from the mountains of Afghanistan to a preferrable flat plain.
  • We eliminated the ability for Saddam to get involved w/ al qaida (if he wasn’t already, he soon would be becaue he wanted to see America defeated too).
  • We eliminated Saddam’s ability to use WMD. To think he didn’t have them when he had already used them on thousands of Kurds is just stupid and/or naive. (They surely went over the border to Syria at some point).
  • We established a more centralized HQ in the region.
  • Secured oil suppilies, which, like it or not, were essential to our nation’s economy.
  • Most important - we drew the cockroaches er, al qaida to a battlefield of our choosing. We diverted their attention & abilities to Iraq instead of letting them stay in their comfort zone where they could plan & stage attacks anywhere they wanted. They had to setup a whole new base of oprerations. That was probably the most brilliant strategy of the whole endeavor. Even in the present situation, al qaida is much closer to being defeated now than they would’ve been had the fighting continued just in Afghanistan.
  • We also were able to give the people of Iraq a shot at Democracy which they most assuradly would not have if Saddam were still in power.
  • No more torture chambers for the people of Iraq (that in istelf is a worthy cause!).</p>

<p>Need I go on? I could probably think of a few more benefits to our presence in Iraq. The best thing we can do now is elect a president who has the experience to truly understand the situation, and the knowledge & wisdom to make rational, informed decisions about the right course of action. </p>

<p>That ain’t Obama or Hillary - they REALLY don’t have a clue! McCain’s experience goes back before the Marine Barracks bombing of 1983. He will lead us thru the “woods” on this (H & O have never seen the “map” and don’t want to use the “flashlight”). McCain knows the way - let’s follow HIM!.</p>

82

<p>f.f: Protection of individual rights and individual privacy from government intrusion is actually more a traditional conservative issue rather than a “far-left” issue. The ultimate “far left” were the communists who excelled at government intrusion of personal privacy. </p>

<p>You are making the mistaken assumption that only the terrorists’ rights are being compromised. Imagine for a moment that a vindictive left-wing administration takes control of our country. What a disaster it would be for them to have unrestricted ability to monitor our activities.</p>

83

<p>

</p>

<p>What you are arguing is a hypothetical worst case versus a reality. The reality is that we know with 100% certainty that there are terrorists out there whose intent is to kill as many of us as they can. If they can figure a way to take out an entire city, they would not hesitate. That is the reality that we are dealing with.</p>

<p>Your counter to that reality is a hypothetical. If that ever becomes a reality we can then deal with it. ANY law can be abused (just look at the way the Duke “rape” case lead to abuse). The beauty of our system is that if/when abuses occur, we can modify the laws to clamp down on them. To counter a hypothetical and thus leave ourselves vulnerable to a reality is stupendously irresponsible.</p>

<p>Oh, and one other MAJOR point. Look at how you phrased your hypothetical. No one is proposing “unrestricted ability to monitor our activities”. It is that use of extremeist, demonizing language to describe the opposing view that is precisely what is wrong the left these days.</p>

84

<p>We also were able to give the people of Iraq a shot at Democracy which they most assuradly would not have if Saddam were still in power.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I betcha Obama knows the difference ;)</p>

85

<p>I dnt know but im voting democrat this time. i mean the last time i voted democrat as well but the time before that i would have voted republican if i was allowed to vote. i wasn’t because i was under age. But i haven’t seen any good from the republicans and Obama is promising a lot i dnt really know what Hillary Clinton is promising but my dad told me that Obama is a better candidate then Clinton so ill probably vote for him :)</p>

86

<p>ek4 - technically, you’re right. I was using the popularly accepted terminology of “Democracy” which refers mainly to “free elections”.</p>

<p>I appreciate your post as many people do not understand the difference.</p>

87

<br>

<br>

<p>1). I am very careful to use non-demonizing language. Even the pre-patriot laws provide for pretty much unrestricted ability to monitor the activities of a suspected terrorist. All that is needed is for the agencies to obtain the approval of a judge who is usually friendly and nearly always grants the permission. The administration has not even tried to provide a rational reason why that is difficult and why warrantless wiretaps are needed. Instead they resort to demonization of the opponents by a) calling the law “patriot” act, so that anyone who opposes it can be labelled “non-patriotic”. b) reminding us that there are terrorists trying to kill us and that we are “aiding and abetting the enemy” if we want to protect our citizens from government intrusion. </p>

<p>2). Since when did protection of the individual from government become a priority of the left? This is a conservative issue and the pseudo-conservatives have totally dropped the ball on this one. As they have on many other issues, such as not declaring war on a country that didn’t attack us. Ron Paul is absolutely right on this issue and he is probably the only true conservative in the Presidential race.</p>

88

<p>Emeraldkity - you need to be careful with the quotations. All of those “God-ridden” quotations are NOT from the period of the formation of the Constitution (1787-1790), but are later accretions. None of the figures AT THE TIME talked about Biblical values; they explicitly left God out of the Constitution (knowing full well that the charters and constitutions of each of the 13 colonies included Him/Her), and several “founding fathers” of the country, notably Patrick Henry, opposed ratification of the Constitution partially on the grounds that God was left out. That he lost tells you something about what folks were thinking at the time.</p>

89

<p>"I am very careful to use non-demonizing language. "</p>

<p>Well, then please point me to anyone in the Bush administration or Congress who has been pushing for “unrestricted ability to monitor our activities”. Are you even aware what this means?</p>

90

<p>Well I knew you would be there to correct me :)</p>

<p>You are right- & I should have paid more attention even if I hadn’t had any coffee yet-
[Election-Year</a> Stewardship Republic v. Democracy - David Barton - Koinonia House](<a href=“http://www.khouse.org/articles/2004/546/]Election-Year”>http://www.khouse.org/articles/2004/546/)</p>

<p>Freedom OF religion also includes freedom FROM religon</p>

<p>[American</a> Civil Liberties Union : The ACLU and Freedom of Religion and Belief](<a href=“http://www.aclu.org/religion/gen/27282res20061103.html]American”>http://www.aclu.org/religion/gen/27282res20061103.html)</p>

<p>

</p>

91

<p>f.f: I never said that the administration wants unrestricted ability to monitor our activities. I said that we should make sure we do not end up with that scenario. As you said, it is a hypothetical extrapolation of the logic that says our need for intelligence overrides our personal freedoms. And that is the crux of the argument you and the administration is making. </p>

<p>Besides, even if I had suggested that, it does not equate to demonization. I am not questioning the intentions of the administration. I think they do want to protect Americans. I just strongly disagree with the means they are employing to that end.</p>

<p>If you strongly disagree with Hillary’s health plan and you could say that it is a step towards socialized medicine. That doesn’t mean you are demonizing her. But if you say that she is deliberately using the health plan as a way to undermine the country’s health, or that she is a communist, then you are demonizing her. </p>

<p>That is why when someone questions the patriotism of anti-war or anti-torture activists, they ARE demonizing them.</p>

92

<p>"As you said, it is a hypothetical extrapolation of the logic that says our need for intelligence overrides our personal freedoms. And that is the crux of the argument you and the administration is making. "</p>

<p>As Ronald Reagan would say, “There you go again” painting the oppositional view with extremist language. No one has said “need for intelligence overrides our personal freedoms”. Why does everthing have to be painted in the most extreme view? Why not realize that there always is going to be a balance between personal freedom and security? The question is what is the correct balance. </p>

<p>My view is that with today’s threats that the Dems are dangerously over-reacting to a hypothetical strawman argument and pushing the balance far too much toward personal rights whereby the only people whose rights they are protecting are those of the terrorists.</p>

93

<p>“In his famous Memorial and Remonstrance, Madison criticized the funding bill, which he repeatedly decried for its “establishing” religion and for interfering with freedom of conscience.”</p>

<p>Emeraldkity, the Madison of 1785 was not the Madison of 1787-1789, the Constitution period, which was also the period of Thomas Paine’s “Age of Reason” - the most agnostic/atheist period in U.S. history. A period in which George Washington refused to take communion in his own church. A period in which the an overwhelming majority of the best educated and best read white men in the country ratified a Constitution without a single reference to God, and only one reference to religion - a negative one. A period where they went so far as to leave out any protection whatsoever for the practice of religion (only restored through the 1st Amendment.) A period in which Jesus and the Bible are wholly absent from their deliberations.</p>

<p>This would change, of course, with the Great Awakening of 1802 and following, and would have been different during the Deist/Natural Law period of 1774-1777.</p>

94

<p>

</p>

<p>No, you didn’t. al-Quaeda and the Taliban are still in Afghanistan, and they’re still fighting - you’re just not there to help, because you’re off in Iraq fighting insurgents that you created yourselves with the ridiculous war.</p>

<p>This strikes particularly close to home as a Canadian, because as the largest contingent of the international force there (at least in the fighting zones), our soldiers are fighting and dying all the time against an enemy you seem to have have forgotten still very much resides primarily in Afghanistan and Pakistan, not in Iraq.</p>

<p>I am literally floored that you actually think that starting the war in Iraq was a positive move for America’s capabilities to fight al-Quaeda. That is such a ridiculous point of view I really don’t know how to respond.</p>

<p>I guess the billions of dollars spent, the many troops killed… all that is just increasing your fighting abilities and decreasing al-Quaeda’s (when they’re still fighting in Afghanistan like they always have been!).</p>

95

<p>Almost all of Al-Qaeda in Iraq, according to U.S. military intelligence some 90%, were/are homegrown, and didn’t exist prior to the U.S. aggressive, hostile occupation. So what essentially happened is the U.S. got bogged down against an enemy of their own creation, and most recently, ethnically cleansed 600,000 would-be U.S. allies (a large number of them Christians, if one cares) in the process.</p>

<p>Sounds like a miserable failure to me.</p>

96

<p>F.F: Fine, that is your view and you are entitled to it. My view is that the current admin (not the whole GOP) is allowing fear of terrorism to erode our basic American values of privacy and human dignity by engaging in warrantless wiretaps and torture. And no, I am not using extremist language by calling it torture. The administration’s use of euphemisms (‘enhanced interrogation’, ‘stress positions’, etc) does not make it any less than torture. </p>

<p>You are welcome to respond to this message and continue to promote your views here, but I don’t wish to continue this conversation right now, because it is not a debate that will end any time soon. </p>

<p>Respectfully,</p>

<p>VP.</p>

97

<p>

Please don’t tell me that you think that there are more Canadian soldiers fighting in Afghanistan than US soldiers?</p>

98

<p>

</p>

<p>In the south of Afghanistan, near Kandahar, where the majority of the most intense fighting is, Canadian soldiers have done the majority of the combat and suffered a very high proportion of the casualties. That is what I think, and what I said (though I was a bit too ambiguous - my apologies, I was in a rush).</p>

99

<p>

</p>

<p>Wrong. How do you define terrorist? Unless there have been some changes to the patriot act I’m not aware of, last I heard there were NO provisions to protect citizens; any citizen can be thrown in jail without a trial and without cause, searched without a warrant, etc. Oh just basically the rights we hold dear and what makes democracy a good thing…those things are being eroded away and people really should wake up.</p>

100

<p>

This claim demands proof. It sounds to me like the typical dis-information that the left blogosphere likes to throw around. It is bogus. Yet, they accuse the Bush administration of spreading fear when this kind of BS becomes thrown around like it is common knowledge.</p>