Finally A Choice

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Martin, Jan 28, 2007.

  1. Martin

    Martin
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2005
    Messages:
    5,228
    Likes Received:
    0
    Finally the Republican Party "MAY" have given conservative Christians, who don't support Bush's plan for the war in Iraq, a candidate. That candidate is Sam Brownback (R-Kansas). Brownback is a conservative Christian who does not support Bush's planned escalation of the war in Iraq. Unlike the other conservative candidate Mitt Romney, Brownback does not have a bag full of liberal votes to try to explain away.

    Above I said that "the Republican Party "MAY" have given conservative Christians a candidate". The reason I said "may" is because (a) the election is still two years away and he has only formed an Exploratory Committee, (b) he is still a bit rusty, and (c) McCain, Romney, and Giuliani will get all the media attention leaving candidates like Brownback and Huckabee out in the cold. So the '00 Republican primary campaign is probably going to be repeated in '08. The true conservative getting booted for some guy who the party believes can win.

    Of course it would look like Bush would have taught them not to do that. What is Bush's current poll numbers again? 41% according to Rasmussen. I think we can do better. At this time my support is with Sam Brownback.

    [​IMG]
     
    #1 Martin, Jan 28, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 28, 2007
  2. Martin

    Martin
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2005
    Messages:
    5,228
    Likes Received:
    0
  3. church mouse guy

    church mouse guy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2002
    Messages:
    10,988
    Likes Received:
    79
    Thanks, Martin!

    Thanks, Martin! I watched the video announcement of Senator Brownback. I have been for Senator Brownback until recently when I changed my mind.

    I first heard of him in 2000 when he received the Christian Statesman of the Year award from the Center For Christian Statesmanship in Washington DC, which is an outreach of Fort Lauderdale's Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church and Dr. D. James Kennedy, as you know. http://www.statesman.org/PAGES/Awards/2000.asp

    I don't approve of his intention to vote for a resolution against the President's plan in Iraq. It has no legal force but it is insulting to the President. It causes me to question Brownback's judgment and his party loyalty. Also, I don't really want another Roman Catholic President, although I recognize that some Roman Catholics now vote Republican. However, I still think that Brownback is a good Senator and I agree with his pro-life stance, etc.

    At this time, I support Rudy Giuliani.
     
  4. Martin

    Martin
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2005
    Messages:
    5,228
    Likes Received:
    0
    ==Funny, this was the thing that pushed me to support him. Several others are just as conservative but only Brownback hit this issue as well.

    ==I don't think it is insulting at all. He disagrees with Bush's careless policies and he is standing up, putting his vote where his mouth is, and saying so. Bush has had four years to get Iraq right. I don't think it is an insult for anyone to say that he has failed.

    ==I care little for party loyalty. In fact I believe that party loyalty is hurting our nation.

    ==I was not aware that there had been a flood of Catholic Presidents nor was I aware that such was a problem. When was our last Catholic President?

    ==Why? You said you agree with Brownback's pro-life stance so why would you support someone who does not agree with Brownback's positions?
     
  5. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    I can't support Brownback because he is awful on the issue of illegal immigration. I will not go along with any idea that includes amnesty for illegal aliens in this country. And Huckabee is even worse as he even wants taxpayers to pay for scholarships for the children of illegal aliens.

    Huckabee is also soft on criminals. Huckabee is a busybody who wants to tell everybody what they can and can't eat - because he lost a bunch of weight. Huckabee just depleted the emergency fund here in Arkansas as he left office to trash state computers. Now the taxpayers of Arkansas have to replenish the emergency fund and purchase new computers to replace the ones that Huckabee destroyed.

    The only candidate who is consistent on all of the issues that Christians interested in limited, constitutional government care about is Congressman Ron Paul. If he goes ahead and runs for the GOP nomination, then that is who to support without question.
     
    #5 KenH, Jan 28, 2007
    Last edited: Jan 28, 2007
  6. Bartimaeus

    Bartimaeus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2002
    Messages:
    909
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ron Paul would get my vote.

    Bartimaeus
     
  7. The Galatian

    The Galatian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2001
    Messages:
    9,687
    Likes Received:
    0
    Of all the Republicans, I'd have to say Ron Paul would be the one for whom I could vote.

    I had no idea Mouse would favor a pro-abortion candidate, with liberal voting record and a history of marital infidelity.
     
  8. church mouse guy

    church mouse guy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2002
    Messages:
    10,988
    Likes Received:
    79
    Don't worry, Galatian, you are a liberal Democrat and you will vote in the Democrat primary for whomever will cut and run in Iraq, cutting and running being the official position of The Vatican--The Vatican's position subject to change only if islamofascism attacks The Vatican itself.

    Martin, the Democrats and Republicans who oppose the President on the handful of additional troops--not an all-time high in Iraq--have made themselves known publically. Their motives are purely political as they are trying to insure their re-elections in 2008 by hedging their bets in the official record. If they are truly against it, it is time to do what the Democrats did after Watergate and refuse to fund the war anymore. If they still vote to fund the war, then their stance in a non-binding resolution is for pure selfish political reasons as they say merely that they are against what they vote for. The public in Kansas must already know that Brownback wants to cut and run in Iraq and a public statement for his national campaign would be all that is necessary without the pointless resolution designed only to humiliate the President personally for doing what Brownback and others do not have the courage to oppose publically. We saw a lot of this sort of thing during the Viet Nam war. I think that Brownback's voting for the resolution also undermines the military at war.
     
  9. Terry_Herrington

    Terry_Herrington
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2002
    Messages:
    4,455
    Likes Received:
    1
    Wow, attacked for being a Catholic and accused of being a Democrat, when you have plainly stated that you are not. All this in only on paragraph. You are improving in your smearing ability, CMG!
     
  10. Martin

    Martin
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2005
    Messages:
    5,228
    Likes Received:
    0
    ==I think that they should vote to not fund the additional troops. Thus Bush can't send them. This is because 20,000 troops is not enough and because I just don't believe this administration is willing to do what it must in order to actually win in Iraq. The troops I have talked to who have been in Iraq all say the same thing, we can't win the war using the current strategy. I also think congress should make continued funding for the war effort in Iraq conditional upon the Bush administration taking steps that will either (a) bring about a clear win or (b) bring about a soon pull out. If one of those two directions is not taken then the funding is stopped and the troops come home (ASAP). This will force Bush's hand. He will either have to do it right or pull out. After four years, in a war that should not have lasted that long, it is time for the nation's checks and balances system to go into full swing. Bush may think he is the "decider" but he is not the funder, and without the funders his decisions are meaningless.

    ==After four years, thousands of dead Americans, and millions of dollars spent I hardly call any plan to pull out "cut and run". There comes a point when the truth must be faced. The truth here is that after four years Baghdad is still not secure, Americans and Iraqis are dying everyday in battle and terrorist attacks, the Iraqi "government" is not doing half of what it should be doing, the Iraqi police and military are full of people who are loyal to their tribe/group and not the leaders of the country. We are not gaining real ground in Iraq. So, the question must be asked, why stay? I can't really think of one good reason. Someone says that Iraq will get worse if we pull out, and I agree. But who is to blame for that? The Bush administration. They did not put enough troops or resources on the ground from the start, they declared victory way too soon, they made one major mistake after another. I don't believe more American soldiers should die because of Bush's mistakes. The Bush administration must take full the blame for their failures. I have no doubt we could have won in Iraq. After four years of failures it is too late for Bush to ask for my trust in his policies or decisions. George W Bush, in my opinion, is a failure.

    ==Why do people try to say that this is an attempt to "humiliate the President"? I think this is trying to send a strong signal to the President (which I don't think he will hear). Btw Bush does not need anyone to humiliate him because his policies in Iraq have done that for them.

    ==What undermines the war, and the military, is this administration's failed policies. The problem here is not the military it is the policy the military is being asked to carry out. It has not worked for four years, and the "changes" Bush now wants to make are not enough to make it work now. It is a failure. If Bush would take his hands off and let the military go to work I have no doubt this war could be done within a month or so.
     
    #10 Martin, Jan 29, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 29, 2007
  11. hillclimber1

    hillclimber1
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2006
    Messages:
    2,447
    Likes Received:
    0
    ..........
     
  12. saturneptune

    saturneptune
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    13,977
    Likes Received:
    0
    My vote would be for Ron Paul or the congressman from Colorado. It is beyond rational thought of anyone supporting Bush if he could run again. Praise God for the two term limit in this case.
     
  13. Martin

    Martin
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2005
    Messages:
    5,228
    Likes Received:
    0
    ==That has got nothing to do with Bush's failure as commander and chief. The fact is that if Bush had handled this situation correctly we would not still be fighting a war four years after the fall of Saddam, we would not be getting ready to attempt to secure Baghdad for the third or fourth time, we would not have over three thousand American soldiers dead, Iraq would not be near utter chaos, American soldiers would not be being sent to Iraq for undetermined amounts of time for the second or third time, etc, etc. The reason I oppose the Bush administration on this is because they have failed. They have given me, and millions of others, no reason to trust them anymore. This is not about left wing or right wing this is about the failure of an administration to create a war policy that allows our military to win the war.

    ==I am a Republican. Above that I am a Christian and a strong social conservative. I believe George W Bush, and many of his supporters, are only conservative in name. Party loyalty is hurting our nation. It does not matter which side of the isle it comes from.
     
  14. church mouse guy

    church mouse guy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2002
    Messages:
    10,988
    Likes Received:
    79
    Wow, Terry, what are you saying?

    Terry, it is a matter of record that the late Pope disliked Bush and opposed the war in Iraq as immoral. I think that the Pope disliked the United States because Catholicism had nothing to do with the founding of this country, which was partly a refuge from Catholicism. The Catholic Church teaches that all non-Catholics go to hell.

    As for the fact that Galatian is a liberal Democrat, that is just a fact. I don't think that it is a smear to say that someone is a Democrat stating the Democrat line or a Catholic stating the Catholic line. If you have another take on Galatian's shotgun rhetoric, be my guest.
     
  15. church mouse guy

    church mouse guy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2002
    Messages:
    10,988
    Likes Received:
    79
    The resolution will discourage US troops in combat.

    Martin, thank you for the thoughtful reply.

    I supported Brownback for President for two or three years, but I think that he has no chance for several reasons.

    Congress does not have the nerve to vote against money for the troops. They have no mandate to do that. Harry Reid, the mormon leader of the Democrats, called for more troops before the election. His party won. We went through this process during Viet Nam and defunding of the troops never happened until after Watergate when the Democrats had landslide majorities. I am not sure that Bush needs additional funding to re-deploy 20,000 troops. However, I don't think that anyone can question Bush's desire to win the war because he has stood alone almost in his resolve to fight until victory. It is the Democrats who have wanted to cut and run as they did in Korea and Viet Nam. The Democrat Party is the peace at any price party. As for second-guessing the military planning, I think that Bush has given the military a free hand. It was Lyndon Johnson who micromanaged the Viet Nam War and whose rules of engagement caused disaster after disaster.

    Any plan that calls for withdraw without victory is cut and run by definition. The number of dead Americans, which you mention, Martin, is less than the number of Americans who died in a lot of single days during World War II. The Islamofascists are betting that American culture will not allow the price to be paid for victory. You say that the war is a failure because there has been no victory yet in Iraq and many mistakes. However, you do not discuss what will happen if we cut and run from Iraq because we do not have a victory yet. Brownback needs to talk about a nuclear Iran, with the possibility of a nuclear Turkey, a nuclear Egypt, a nuclear Saudia Arabia, and even a nuclear Jordan (which announced that it will seek to build an atomic bomb). What will happen to American interest when Iran starts ruling Iraq?

    Well, Martin, Brownback is trying to humilitate the President and it will cause Brownback's defeat if he actually votes for this resolution. Brownback cannot ask me to be loyal to him if he is not loyal to his President because this is a Republican Party issue. Brownback, as was pointed out on the site about his being 2000 Christian Statesman of the Year, cannot stab the Party in the back that promoted him to where he is now--a US Senator from Kansas. Why should I support him? I do not support McCain for the same reasons. Brownback now looks no different than Hillary. Let's hope he changes his mind and votes against the resolution.

    Martin, the resolution does undermine the troops on the frontlines. It says to them that the US Congress is really against them and considers their sacrifice in vain. Not only will the troops feel abandoned by Congress but also the Arabs will notice it right away and take heart. It is one thing for the Democrats to pass such a resolution because everyone knows that the Democrats do not support the war but it is another thing for Republicans to join with the Democrats. Perhaps Brownback should ask the Democrats to nominate him because he will not be welcomed in the Republican primary. Republicans who agree with the Democrats can vote for the Democrats in 2008 and accomplish their goals.

    Indiana Senator Richard Lugar says that the resolution is not helpful, that the resolution shows disarray over Irag, and that the resolution might disrupt other military and diplomatic movements.

    Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman said that the Resolution will discourage our troops.

    No, Martin, Brownback is really too green on foreign policy at this time.

     
  16. Terry_Herrington

    Terry_Herrington
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2002
    Messages:
    4,455
    Likes Received:
    1
    I'm not a Catholic, but I agree with the Pope on these points!

    On what facts do you base these beliefs?

    I find it difficult to think that the Pope looks back in history hundreds of years and then feels the need to be hostile toward the United States to avenge some wrong done the Catholic church. I would at least need some facts to substantiate this before I would even consider it to be true.

    You should see things some Baptist churches teach. There are Baptist churches on opposite sides of many beliefs. Just because some Baptist church believes something doesn't mean that you personally believe it. Galatian isn't responsible for everything the Catholic church has ever said. You know this, CMG.



    You know full well that Galatian has denied being a Democrat and has stated that he is a Libertarian. To continue to say otherwise is to tell a lie.
     
  17. saturneptune

    saturneptune
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    13,977
    Likes Received:
    0
    As compared to whom? The clown in office now?
     
  18. saturneptune

    saturneptune
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    13,977
    Likes Received:
    0
    That idea is total rubbish. If there is a Baptist church that teaches only Baptists enter heaven, you would not find me worshiping there. It takes a lot of gall to claim this or that denomination has the exclusive ticket to heaven, since they are all man made. When all is said and done, it is guaranteed there will be plenty of Baptists on church rolls in hell who never knew the Lord who will look up at plenty of people from other denominations in heaven that did know the Lord.
     
    #18 saturneptune, Jan 30, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 30, 2007
  19. hillclimber1

    hillclimber1
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2006
    Messages:
    2,447
    Likes Received:
    0
    ..........
     
  20. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    If the Republican Party doesn't return to conservatism/libertarianism it should be abandoned because it will be no different than the Democrat Party - which isn't evil(such a description goes beyond the pale). But the liberal policies pushed by most Democrats and an increasing number of Republicans are not the direction that I want to see government policy go.
     
    #20 KenH, Jan 30, 2007
    Last edited: Jan 30, 2007

Share This Page

Loading...