A Day in the Life of Joe Middle-Class Republican

[Jenks]

Gore would have been the worst of the worst.

I have no doubt we would have gone into afghanistan, it wasn't so much the government that acted on that, it was the American public that demanded it. Regardless of who was president at the time, noone could have ignored the public outcry for retaliation. In that respect, Gore would have done a decent enough job, and who knows, maybe would have finished Afghanistan.

Gore on a domestic front would have scared the bejesus out of me, not that the Bush Admin has done much better, but holy hell and a bag of chips i don't agree with Democratic domestic policy.

[toasty]

Perhaps, but would we have gone to Iraq as well? Thats yet another point. Vladimir told Bush that Iraq was planning an attack against the US. And what better time to do so then after 9/11, while we were still cleaning up the mess?

That's a real good question. Maybe, maybe not. Saddam clearly needed to go at some point. I would have liked to have seen us finish the job with Osama first, and I would have liked to have been given a legitmate reason for going in there, but that's a discussion for another day. Regardless, one would hope that we didn't go into Iraq as we have, with unrealistic expectations about what would happen once we got there and no exit strategy. Alas, I digress...

Now think what could have happened while Gore is over talking with Haans while he carries out further inspections, and they find nothing. Saddam attacks the US with some biological agent, most likely antrax and hundreds of thousands are infected. 9/11 looks like a joke in comparrison. Think about it, sure Osama hates us, and he has plenty of backing and funding, but not near the extent that Saddam has and could have used against us.

Gore probably would have not taken the same initiative that Bush did, this is just my personal belief. And that could have resulted in further attacks against the US, not by Al Quada but by Saddam and his cohorts. And could have been much, much worse then 9/11. Gore would have been more concerned with Diplomacy and how the world looked at him. Bush knew he would get hated at least in the immediate future for taking such action and did it any way. That shows character to me, regardless of all the other mistakes he made along the way.

...

Nobody will ever know, but I personally agree with Pam. Shit would have been a lot different had Gore won. And in my estimation, could have been a lot lot worse.

This would hold a lot more water with me if we didn't know know that, as a matter of fact, no WMDs existed, and Saddam did not pose an imminent threat ( http://www.boston.com/dailynews/258/...out_fin:.shtml ). You're presenting a doomsday scenario, but the facts really don't bear it out.

I guess if you're in that camp that believes that Saddam shipped all of his WMDs out of the country and that they're still out there somewhere, I guess that's your prerogative, but I don't buy it, and haven't seen any credible evidence that that is the case. Of course, I'm in the camp that believes that we went into Iraq because Bush had a hard-on for Saddam and had every intention of going into Iraq and was just looking for an excuse, but there's no hard evidence for that either.

I just wish Bush had come out and said, "Look, this Saddam cat needs to go, who's with me?" He could have saved himself a lot of trouble. I probably wouldn't be voting for him for a host of other reasons, but at least I would continue to have some respect for the guy.

[Civic_Zen]

The fact that Saddam was side stepping the UN for 10 years on the WMD issue is more then enough evidence to assume that he has them. Or at the very least had them.

There's a lot more evidence supporting my camp; that there are WMD - just look at all the places underground and otherwise that were obviously used for their manufacturing. Where as there is absolutely no evidence to support your camp, just the usual liberals and their conspiracy theories. I'm not saying he was creating nuclear weapons, but Biological warfare is just as scary. And I'm not saying that he planned to use it all on us, because he probably would have bombed Israel first.

What I am saying is that there were biological and chemical weapons created and manufactured in the 100's of facilities strewn in and around Iraq. Where they are now is anyone's guess. And there will be evidence, in the next 10 years mind you, to support what I'm saying. I just hope it isn't proved with an attack against us.

[Trancelucent One]

Re: A Day in the Life of Joe Middle-Class Republican

Toasty, I don't think that Civic's idea is an unrealistic doomsday scenario. A small amount of biological weapons can cause disasterous effects!! There are certain agents that can kill in micro moles (that's about 1 x 10-9). I'm not going to bore you with the scientific details but these are the weapons that we should be most concerned with!! I also agree that the fact that Saddam was jerking everyone around for 10 years was enough reason to believe that something was there. If someone gets pulled over for drunk driving and refuses a breathalizer test then it is assumed that they were drunk. I think the same can be said for Saddam and all his sidestepping. Saddam knew that the UN didn't have the balls to do anything, what he didn't know was that the US did! I don't think that a good foreign policy is to "talk to the terrorists and find work with them." These are not rational people and should not be treated as such! This is one of the biggest ways in which I agree with the Republican party!

[toasty]

^^ Well, the Secretary of State has come out and said that there aren't any WMDs and that there are unlikely to be any found; that statement isn't exactly in his best interest in light of previous comments, so I'm inclined to take him at his word.

I think we're at an impasse here...

[davetlv]

Its not surprising that WMD's can not be found in Iraq, with a decade to hide facilities and equipment i very much doubt that they will ever be found within Iraq itself.

If the US are serious about finding, and i guess destroying, weapons which we all know DID exsist, i suggest that a trip into Syria would be a good starting place.

As Civic said my country would probably been the first one WMD would have been used against, and with that in mind I'm relieved, as you all should be, that a previous administration took the unpopular decision to halt Saddam's nuclear programme.

[neoee]

here is a simple education lesson ...

being republican equals less government.
being democratic equals more government.

the funny thing ... people do not know that.

I'm sorry but thats compete B.S.- Here's how it should read:
being republican equals more government.
being democratic equals more government.

the only difference is one of these parties wants to force their religious beliefs on you.

Where I work there's many things that are done inefficiently. Now we could tell people how to make things better but whats in it for us as employees? The company isn't going to give me more money for my suggestions. Maybe a pat on the back and a stupid gift certificate to the company store or some such crap. But what will happen is that they will then need less people to run the show. They will start letting people go, which at the very least takes the 'padding' away from me and the unemployment line.
While each party will try to get you to believe that they will redice the size of government, the truth of the matter is no ones really going to. That would just be putting themselves out of a job.

[asdf_admin]

o i love this. you gonna burn biatch.

From Webster Online ...

Democratic-Republican
of or relating to a major American political party of the early 19th century favoring a strict interpretation of the constitution to restrict the powers of the federal government and emphasizing states' rights

Democratic often capitalized : of or relating to one of the two major political parties in the U.S. evolving in the early 19th century from the anti-federalists and the Democratic-Republican party and associated in modern times with policies of broad social reform and internationalism

it's that simple lesson. I know fact and truth ... not lies and deception. Good day.
plus Kerry is also religious ... so what the fuck are you talking about? You liberals need to get your lies straight. They seem more and more desperate.

[toasty]

o i love this. you gonna burn biatch.

From Webster Online ...

Democratic-Republican
of or relating to a major American political party of the early 19th century favoring a strict interpretation of the constitution to restrict the powers of the federal government and emphasizing states' rights

Democratic often capitalized : of or relating to one of the two major political parties in the U.S. evolving in the early 19th century from the anti-federalists and the Democratic-Republican party and associated in modern times with policies of broad social reform and internationalism

it's that simple lesson. I know fact and truth ... not lies and deception. Good day.
plus Kerry is also religious ... so what the fuck are you talking about? You liberals need to get your lies straight. They seem more and more desperate.

Desperate? I'd say relying upon a definition which looks to "the early 19th century" is pretty desperate.

In the here and now, though, I will reiterate that Bush does not fit the mold of what is traditionally considered republican, regardless of what he calls himself.

With regard to Kerry's religion, this is one area where I really like the guy. Yes, Kerry is a religious guy as is his prerogative, but he believes very strongly in separation of church and state. That is key in my mind. A politician's religion should not become policy.

[asdf_admin]

are we on the topic of larger gov due to national security? or liberal paper pushers?

I love you.

[toasty]

are we on the topic of larger gov due to national security? or liberal paper pushers?

Well, I think that's a false dichotomy, and I'm not going to fall into that trap. What I'm talking about is rampant government spending (excluding the military/HS spending) here at home on programs Bush finds appealing, like the aforementioned (and absurd) program to promote the concept of marriage. Remember when Bush intended to trumpet in the State of the Union speech about his intent to send a man to the moon -- at a time when the deficit was already huge -- but decided against it after the proposal went over like a lead balloon with the American people? We're at war, and this jackass wants to send someone to the moon where, of course, we've already been a number of times.

[asdf_admin]

all i know ... war allows technology to explode and brings back this nation to economic stability. besides that ... i have no clue what is going.

o, one more thing liberals are paper pushers.

ps. i have not seen the moon in a while, i would like to see how it is doing. =P

[toasty]

all i know ... war allows technology to explode and brings back this nation to economic stability.

OK, it probably seems like I'm disagreeing with you purely for sport now, and this isn't even close to the original topic of this thread, but I don't think this is the case anymore. During WWII and the Cold War, it bolstered our economy because we were in the process of developing the infrastructure necessary for war. Nowadays, much of that infrastructure already exists, and I don't know that it necessarily follows that "A wartime economy is a prosperous economy" the way it was in the past.

o, one more thing liberals are paper pushers.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, the same way conservatives are warmongers... :wink:

[asdf_admin]

i can agree with you, but that is it toasty ... and since you and I are the only ones chatting it up ... I think we are okay.

Thank God I hate politics.

jajajajajaja.

ps. i am crazy.