The New Republician Guide to America
POSTED BY: fredgiblet
UPDATED: Friday, July 25, 2025 18:57
VIEWED: 8637
PAGE 2 of 9
Quote:
Jesus loves you, and shares your hatred of homosexuals and Hillary Clinton.
Hillary Clinton, yes. Homosexuals are welcome, but not entitled to special consideration or protections. In other words...its nobody's business.
Quote:
Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him,
Saddam was the lesser evil in a world dominated by the ideological struggle against communism and the more recent conflict against the Islamafascists in Iran.
Quote:
a bad guy when Bush's daddy made war on him
In 1991 the Soviet Empire had collapsed and the Soviet Union was on its last legs. Likewise Iran had begun to gravitate to a more moderate position. Neither country posed an immediate threat to the world's oil supply and neither had conquered a small defenseless neighbor. So Iraq, by virtue of America's success against its enemies and its own failure to recognize the changing times, moved itself to the top of the list.
Quote:
, a good guy when Cheney did business with him,
You are not going in chronilogical order. We delt with Iraq in the '70s and '80s to counter both the Soviet influence and Iranian aggression. We also had similar efforts in Egypt and Jordan, both of which were much more successful. The strategy was to court moderate beligerant states and move them to moderate or friendly positions. In many ways our efforts encouraged Iraqi agression towards a longs and costly war with Iran, rather then another conflict with Isreal that could have sparked a broader confrontation between regional or world power blocs. So good job, Reagan and company prevented another war with Isreal, neutralized the Iranian and Iraqi threats by getting our enemies to fight each other and in the meantime removed the larger ideological conflict from getting in the way. We ended 1991 with the possibility of a real and lasting peace in the Middle East...unfortunately Clinton and his Secretary of State fumbled that away.
Quote:
and a bad guy when Bush needed a "we can't find Bin Laden" diversion.
Some people say it was a diversion, some people say it was planned long before 9/11. The truth is Saddam was responsible for the 2003 war. He never backed off his policy of confrotation. After 9/11 our policy changed to one in which we no longer allow these people to sit back and poke us with sticks year after year...we hit back.
Quote:
Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is Communist, but trade with China and Vietnam is vital to a spirit of international harmony.
Reagan was blasted because he wanted to trade with South Africa, but his plan was to use trade as the means of moving them in the direction we want them to go. Such is the case with Vietnam. In China's case we have trade with them because for several decades we courted them as a possible ally against the Soviet Union. When the Soviets fell we continued to encourage reform. They have economically reformed, but politically they are mired in 20th Century thinking. We continue to push reform and cannot ourselves afford to be isolated from such a large potential market. We nust be involved in China's future path or else we risk them courting their allies and partners with those who are our more aggressive enemies...also an isolated China might become desperate and a desperate near superpower is very dangerous. Such dangers led to Japan's attack on the US in WW2, and thats also why we sold low priced grain to the starving Soviets, even at the height of the cold war.
Quote:
The United States should get out of the United Nations, and our highest national priority is enforcing U.N. resolutions against Iraq.
The world needs a UN that is effective. That means an end to corruption and an end to meaningless gestures. In the 90's the UN became a debating society whose words meant nothing. Likewise the corruption grew so bad as to make the UN completely ineffective and helped foster the biggest fraud in human history under its oil for fo
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hero writes "Everyone has the right to make decision about their own body. Its when those decisions affect others that the government needs to step in. I have no objection to a woman signing a DNR, donating a kidney, or getting huge fake boobies (who doesn't love big breasted organ doners who don't want to live on some machine). But when she becomes pregnant, another life is involed and that person has rights that may conflict with those of the mother. In such cases the State has the duty to intervene. The question is when does a collection of cells become life. Some believe at conception, some believe not until 9 people in black robes say they do. Most Republicans believe such a decision is a social or religeous matter and thus it should be decided by majority vote...at the State level. "
Hero - when you and anyone else that shares this view are willing to take on the financial and custodial responsibilty of an unwanted/unplanned pregnancy and child - THEN you can "step in". Until that time - what a woman does with her body is none of your business.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
not an especially religious person myself... but to the above diatribe.... i offer a hearty... AMEN....
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:
Hero - when you and anyone else that shares this view are willing to take on the financial and custodial responsibilty of an unwanted/unplanned pregnancy and child
Deal. You can abort all you want, we get to unilaterally end all forms of welfare, childrens services, and aid to families with dependent children. Or we can go the other way. Either choice fits some part of the Republican agenda.
Edit: Oops, the lawyer in me wants you to compensate the owner of the sperm who has a half interest in the property you are destroying. Whats the earning power of an American baby in todays market, divided by two?
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Thats a load of 
and you know it.
Lets see how you feel about the issue when a loved one is raped and then becomes pregnant.
A womans right to choose has nothing to do with childrens services and welfare.
If you had your way, we would need MORE. We already don't have enough resources to properly care for the poor and orphaned. Thanks to the oh so christian Republicans need to line the pockets of the rich at the expense of the poor and working poor.
Instead of anti-abortion laws, why not enact a law that says a man is NEVER to ejaculate EVER again unless for the sole purpose of creating a life.
Lets see how well that one would go down.
Oh and BTW - there is a reason the Constitution separates Church and State. It is not up to this government to legislate religion or morals.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:
Lets see how you feel about the issue when a loved one is raped and then becomes pregnant.
One, the rapist would either end up dead or in jail...or both, I know people who know people. Two, that's not the child's fault. I think most Republicans will make an exception for the health of the mother. Many will also make an exception for rape, I find myself undecided on the issue and favoring a case-by-case analysis that is completely unworkable.
Quote:
Instead of anti-abortion laws, why not enact a law that says a man is NEVER to ejaculate EVER again unless for the sole purpose of creating a life.
If you don't believe that's already the case, you don't understand men at all. Men are'nt nearly as complicated in this area as woman. See woman, make baby, watch TV...not always in that order.
Unless you want to use this law to outlaw homosexual sex...then I'm going to have to disagree, after all what those people do in their own bedrooms is their own business. You liberals need to get your nose out of it and keep you homophobic hands off. (Log Cabin Republicans out there...I can hear your cheers.)
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
As the mother of a gay son. Let me just say that it is not liberals that cause him problems, its Republicans and an overzealous christian coalition.
As for your response about men WTF? Makes no sense.
edit: and of course we are all so appreciative of Republicans "making exceptions" for things that are none of their business.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
(Log Cabin Republicans out there...I can hear your cheers.)
gee, that's funny, cause during the last GOP convention i didn't hear a peep from them.... or maybe they were relagated to the "Free Speach Zone"....
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You forgot about not letting them get married because they're not real couples Hero. Very remiss of you.
Originally posted by Hero:
Hillary Clinton, yes. Homosexuals are welcome, but not entitled to special consideration or protections. In other words...its nobody's business.
Quote:Let me check, yep right here:
I suggest its the Democrats who are trying to short change not only the veterans, but also the troops in the field. Bush might have to make hard choices about spending the money, but its the Democrats that force those choices on them.
Book of Conservatives Chapter 2 "Personal Responsibility" verses 12 to 18
"And lo he spake 'Whenever one screws up,
It is someone else’s fault!'
And the conservatives doth rejoice and he spake
'And whenever you screw someone over,
Remember this: it is someone else’s fault!'
And there was much rejoicing."
Chapter 2 verses 45 to 53
"And lo he brought an end to the feast
'When it is somebody else’s fault,
Let them not shirk their responsibilities!
For it is always someone else’s fault!
For our personal responsibility is great!
For our personal responsibility is for all-,
Others!'
And there was much rejoicing!"
Quote:Or more importantly rich, and the problems are, you know, somebody else’s.
Everyone needs regulation. Such regulation needs to be designed to foster growth, make safe products, etc. Who cares if the enviroment is bad if your enemployed?
Quote:You forgot the last bit:
Children need all the facts...including adstenance.
And the only fact is Abstinence.
And last but by no means least:
Quote:Okay, and I'll elaborate so everyone knows exactly what we're talking about:
Creationism should be taught in schools alongside other theories.
Since you obviously want a fair open and even handed approach, not just forcing people to become Christian...
We need to teach creationism in all its forms:
Christian/Jewish,
Islamic (similar but there are differences),
Egyptian Creationism (One of these includes Amun masturbating out the universe to relieve his loneliness, so you've got sex education in that for free to!)
Greek/Roman Creationism (Comes from chaos, involves lots of dancing),
Hindu Creationism (Take one Golden egg, split it in half, viola),
Shinto Creationism (Eggs again, separating the In from the Yo, heavens from the Earth, then wait for the Bomb for a fry up, sorry couldn't resist),
Norse/Teutonic Creationism (Fire Ice, gods kicking seven colours outta each other, all that good stuff),
Let's not forget the creation 'theories' of the Meso/Native Americans, Pagan tribes from across Europe, Australian Aborigines, Sumerians and so on.
Also lets not forget the Church of the Flying Spaghetti monster and his noodly appendage.
http://www.venganza.org/
I mean these are all theories, and you can't say they're any less valid than Christian creationism, as you say, we weren't there!
Hmm but there is a problem. Where the hell are we going to get all this lesson time from. Obviously other subjects will suffer.
Well hang on! Schools are now doing part of the job of the Church, so why don't we make the churches do part of the job of schools in the same way!
A Perfect and fair trade, Schools teach creationism, churches teach physics!
Or we can keep religion in church and lessons in school where they belong, but that's just crazy talk I suppose.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
But when she becomes pregnant, another life is involed and that person has rights that may conflict with those of the mother.
Prior to this, you state that I have a right to donate a kidney if I want. Do I also have a right to withold donation of said kidney, even if another person dies? Prior Supreme Court decisions say I do. Therefore, the conclusion that can be drawn is a person doesn't have to use his or her body in fashion that benefits someone else, even if that person dies. Extrapolating this to pregnancy, it means I don't have to use my womb for the fetus's benefit.
I'm a woman, not an incubator.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME