Registered Independent, very Liberal. Not registered Democrat because 99% of them say the things liberals want to hear, but rarely do anything about it. I agree with any tea party member who is with the tea party for fiscal reasons and government intrusion ONLY. Not the social conservative party it has turned into. You want to legalize pot, and carry your guns, and stop out of control government spending, i'm with you. But not at the expense of the middle class, and the poor. Cut defense, cut funding for the DEA, legalize pot. You want to see a Republican who would be attractive to tons of moderates and even liberals, find one that doesn't pander to the religious nuts in Iowa and in the South. Give me a Republican who is pro choice, and pro legalization, and pro gay rights, and pro flat taxing and closing loopholes in the tax code and I would vote for that man or woman in a heartbeat. Not one who is a corporate puppet.
course there is. spectrum: far left.......dems......moderates....republicans....martin...crazy right other issues ....martin....dems....moderates...repubs... the correct stance is rarely moderate but generally more extreme. you have years of experience not understanding this.
Something I think we all can agree on. Vets should get the best medical coverage money can buy. They should not be looked down on for doing what they were told to do by their government. They should be taken care of if they were injured serving this country. Both dems and reps should do this for our American servicemen and women
We attack each others ideas, not each other and really only get personal with people we like. People who takes things too personally never last long in FSA and will die young. SabanFan and I get along just fine. He's alright for an arrogant, overblown, pompous, martinet with delusions of grandeur. martin is my favorite petulant pseudo elitist in the world. I have a vision of Supa trying to pick up women at Marcello's wearing a bishop's robes and a miter cap, but he is still a fine debater. I, on the other hand, am a master debater. :grin:
Not true at all. Red and I are both having fun. In that spirit and in keeping with the thread topic, I'm happy that Michelle's plane landed safely.
I've seen a lot of attacks (assuming from both sides) on politicians of the other party that flip flop on their voting histories during their careers. I recall John Kerry got that label although don't know all of the specifics. Is it pretty much universally considered "bad" to flip flop on voting certain issues or does it depend on the specific case and degree? The last thing I'll ever be is a politician but (if I were) would think my understanding of certain issues would evolve over time and cause me to reconsider my stance.
Everything has to considered in context. For instance, it became soon clear in the Iraq war that there were no WMD's, Saddam was captured, the people did not welcome us as liberators, and the war became a quaqmire without an end in sight. But George Bush was resolute and would not back down. In this case, resolve alone was the wrong decision. When the situation changes, smart leaders adapt to it, even reverse a bad decision. In other cases resolve is the right decision. In 1991 the first George Bush put together an unprecedented coalition to throw Saddam out of Kuwait. The temptation was there to march on Bagdad and overthrow Saddam. But the President stuck by his guns to not exceed the mission that was planned. I objected to this at the time, but circumstances have proved him correct. As he put it in his 1997 memoir, "A World Transformed" he said, "Trying to eliminate Saddam ... would have incurred incalculable human and political costs... . We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq ... there was no viable 'exit strategy'. Had we gone the invasion route, The United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land." Boy did he turn out to be correct. Context is everything. Sometimes you stick to your guns, sometimes you modify the plan . . . whatever leads to success.
I agree. The folks I most often disagree with are you, martin, SabanFan, and shane, and lasalle. We call each other names, and talk down to each other a bit. But even when it appears to be personal it is only because we are comfortable that the other person has thick enough skin to take it. It is usually toung in cheek. I am usually pretty harsh with lasalle, and he returns it pretty good. I assume I would enjoy having a beer with any of those dudes. There have been other posters who could not take their ideas being criticized, and they never lasted. I remember one guy, who used to post a lot, who wanted to fight me because I disagreed with his position on flag burning (which I think is the most respectful thing you can do). Folks like that must lead miserable lives. As far as Democrats and Republuicans... to say something nice... I like a lot of their suits.
