The Reagans

[greatdarkwing]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
I've always wondered why the US tolerates Castro, especially some of the more hawkish administrations we've had. I think in a certain way Cuba is under our thumb. It bothers me that we've got a third world dictator 90 miles off shore, yet we'll run half way around the world to "liberate" people for whatever reason. It makes me wonder what the US is getting out of it.

I HAVE THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION! Its easy....In Iraq oil....

and in Cuba....nothing...well, unless we dont have a sugar cane shortage in the next bajillion years, lol. Seriously though, Cuba has NOTHING ELSE to offer but sugar...we have no real reason to be there except to knock communism from the western hemisphere.

Right now, I feel the U.S. has Cuba "under its thumb"...its safe to say we are looking at the last 5 years of communism in Cuba THANK GOD!!!!!!

~Alex

[strandinthewind]

Not to mention Florida and NY have more electoral votes than probably 2/3 of the rest of the states where people probably have never heard of Cuba.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by greatdarkwing
I HAVE THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION! Its easy....In Iraq oil....

and in Cuba....nothing...well, unless we dont have a sugar cane shortage in the next bajillion years, lol. Seriously though, Cuba has NOTHING ELSE to offer but sugar...we have no real reason to be there except to knock communism from the western hemisphere.
~Alex

That's a pretty "liberal" answer for a Republican. The way Americans consume sugar a sugar shortage might not be too far off.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Not to mention Florida and NY have more electoral votes than probably 2/3 of the rest of the states where people probably have never heard of Cuba.

Wouldn't that be a good thing though?

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Wouldn't that be a good thing though?

The vote is still out - so to speak!! It is pretty much impossible to win Florida without winning the Cuban vote. The same could be argued for NY if you lump together the hispanic vote (a stretch I know). So, the people running for election keep promising little tidbits here and there but never really address Castro in any relevant sense other than agreeing he is horrible but there to stay.

[Mad4stevie]

Originally posted by sodascouts
I for one can get along with just about anyone, because I don't let my party affiliation define who I should like and dislike, or even what I should believe. I actually can be critical of my own party, and don't automatically press the button beside the "R." I actually have my OWN principles and think for MYSELF. I don't think Bill Clinton is an anti-Christ because some conservative talk show psycho like Ann Coulter does.

And I have made the decision to be a conservative. Guess that makes me a bad person in some people's eyes. I still think pretty highly of myself regardless.

Amen, sister!! I am right there with you I could not have said it better myself.

[darklinensuit]

Originally posted by strandinthewind


I think you neabt a white male WASP, because, if memory serves me correctly, Kennedy was the only Catholic President. And even then, people were questioning whether a "Papist" could give his allegence to two factors. They thought the Pope would control America. Interestingly, in about 1533, i.e. about 400 years ago, people were still making this argument; in fact Henry VIII used, inter alia, it as the reason to form the Church of England of which he was head.

Also, there is the argument that as Jewish President would through the state of Israel into chaos because the Arabs could never consider a Jewish President of the U.S. as neutral (like the R and D Christians are any better ) .

Not just the Arabs. The Jewish community includes a great number of people who don't want a Jewish president. First, there's the feeling that a non-Jewish president would not be afraid to support Israel the way a Jew would be. Second, there's the fear that any mistakes a Jew makes will be blamed on the Jews as a group, as in, See what we get for putting a Jew in the White House? That's a biggie. Terrible as it sounds, I know some Jews who won't vote for a Jewish presidential candidate BECAUSE of his religion. Also, in regard to Leiberman himself, several Jewish organizations are criticizing him for putting so much religion into campaign speeches. Most American Jewish voters are emphatic in their support for separation of Church and State.
Please understand, I'm not promoting or defending any of these opinions --- I'll keep my opinions private. I'm just saying that these opinions are present in the community.

- Jake

[gldstwmn]

http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200401070805.asp

January 07, 2004, 8:05 a.m.
Of Course They Think Bush Is a Nazi

"George Soros, the billionaire financier who is MoveOn's most generous benefactor (in November, he gave the site $2.5 million) has compared the Bush administration to the Third Reich. Soros, who was born in Hungary and grew up under both Nazi and Soviet domination, told the Washington Post last November, "When I hear Bush say, 'You're either with us or against us,' it reminds me of the Germans." He added, "My experiences under Nazi and Soviet rule have sensitized me." Soros repeated his accusations in his new book, The Bubble of American Supremacy."

[Mad4stevie]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200401070805.asp

January 07, 2004, 8:05 a.m.
Of Course They Think Bush Is a Nazi

"George Soros, the billionaire financier who is MoveOn's most generous benefactor (in November, he gave the site $2.5 million) has compared the Bush administration to the Third Reich. Soros, who was born in Hungary and grew up under both Nazi and Soviet domination, told the Washington Post last November, "When I hear Bush say, 'You're either with us or against us,' it reminds me of the Germans." He added, "My experiences under Nazi and Soviet rule have sensitized me." Soros repeated his accusations in his new book, The Bubble of American Supremacy."

Uh, "sensitized" him?!? To me, this type of an analogy is tragic and disrespectful. Not to mention "over-the-top". The difference is that at least in this country, he can express his opinion without fear of being killed or maimed.

[Rob67]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Finally, I have always maintained that to be a "liberal" or, perhaps better phrased, to be one to assert that all people deserve an even playing field despite any personal hastred/prejudice/etc. you have to be willing to think past yourself, which most cannot do. A good example is gays in the military. Absolutely no empirical evidence even suggests it would be the catastrophic thing people imagine; in fact, Australia and Great Britian allow gays in the military and they fight along side of Americans as we speak. Yet, a significant number of Americans hate or are disgusted by gay people. So, they cannot get over that hatred and/or disgust to even consider the evidence that completely belies the any credibility their argument may have.

The answer to that is parenting and education. If I want to look at prejudice in our society and how it has changed, I simply look at my grandparents and their views, my parents and their views, and my peers and my views.

My grandfather IS Archie Bunker, he was raised in a different era and is ignorant of a lot of things. It is almost pointless to argue with him, so I don’t. He is just stuck in his ways. My parents are extremely less prejudice, but having been raised by my grandparents, some things exist. (They frown upon interracial marriages, etc.) I was raised to be tolerant of everyone and to be color blind. College and exposure to other cultures also helped.

I am not suggesting that there is no prejudice with people in my generation but I think it has gotten better over the years.

The fear of gays in the military comes from the same macho fear that guys in a football locker room have. And that's what it is, fear.

Unfortunately, stereotypes mold people's perceptions.

Education, folks...it's the cure to prejudice.

Rob

[Rob67]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
I've always wondered why the US tolerates Castro, especially some of the more hawkish administrations we've had. I think in a certain way Cuba is under our thumb. It bothers me that we've got a third world dictator 90 miles off shore, yet we'll run half way around the world to "liberate" people for whatever reason. It makes me wonder what the US is getting out of it.

Definitley not the cigars!

Damn things are hard to get!

Rob

[Rob67]

Originally posted by Mad4stevie
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by sodascouts
I for one can get along with just about anyone, because I don't let my party affiliation define who I should like and dislike, or even what I should believe. I actually can be critical of my own party, and don't automatically press the button beside the "R." I actually have my OWN principles and think for MYSELF. I don't think Bill Clinton is an anti-Christ because some conservative talk show psycho like Ann Coulter does.

And I have made the decision to be a conservative. Guess that makes me a bad person in some people's eyes. I still think pretty highly of myself regardless.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amen, sister!! I am right there with you I could not have said it better myself.

There are more of us out there then you realize! We, the moderate conservatives!!

Rob

[gldstwmn]

http://www.newsday.com/news/columnis...2998631.column

The New American System Of Justice

"My friend, David Greenfield, a top lawyer in Manhattan who takes on murder cases, was reading some of this over the holiday. He was saying, "This is insanity. I thought everybody knew that no matter how high the crime or the criminal, the punishment phase always must follow the trial. These people, they want off with his head and we'll see if he's fit to stand trial."

The newsmen ought to be asked, too. Story after story said that Dean had made another gaffe; he had called for the Constitution to be used. I read some temporary insanity in a column by Robert Novak that totally omitted the Constitution. He is mentioned because he is big enough. The rest are Pekingese of the Press with fleas."

Jimmy Breslin cracks me up.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by Mad4stevie
Uh, "sensitized" him?!? To me, this type of an analogy is tragic and disrespectful. Not to mention "over-the-top". The difference is that at least in this country, he can express his opinion without fear of being killed or maimed.

So you're okay with Bush's family funding the Nazi's? That's not disrepesctful or tragic? But you're not okay with someone who was actually there giving their take on the situation?

[Johnny Stew]

It's funny... I was a liberal lonnng before I ever knew the term.

As a kid I would silently listen to the people around me, and their thoughts and opinions, and I just knew that I didn't agree with most of the things they said.

And not those piddly conversations about things like taxes, but more important matters like race relations, homosexuality, abortion, single parent families, etc.

So later in my high school Civics class, it was like a light-bulb going off: "Ahh, ok, so I'm a "liberal!"

Of course, not all conservatives feel that homosexuals should be denied the right to marry, or that Affirmative Action is a bad thing... and I actually have a viewpoint on capital punishment (I'm for it), that's more in keeping with the conservative opinion on the matter... but based on the overall belief system of both groups, I'm far more comfortable being called a liberal.

It's the same thing for me with religion... I'm not about to give my
"seal of approval" to a group that has some radically different viewpoints from mine, even if I agree with other things they stand for.

That's why I always say that, even if it was for just one reason... being gay... there's no way that I could, in good conscience, be a conservative or a Republican, when their standard view on homosexuality is that, "we must love the sinner, but hate the sin."

And yes, I realize that not all conservatives/Republicans feel that way, but it is the party's overall stance on the matter, and there's no way that I could ever support a group with that narrow-minded outlook.

(Of course, Jason and I have gone around and around on this before... but like I've told him, I'm still more confident that a liberal/Democrat, or an Independent, would fight for the things that are important to our lives, than I am that a conservative/Republican ever would.)