You are going to use stem cell research, an issue where 99% of doctors themselves have no grasp on the issue, as your evidence that Bush panders to the right? Are you out of your freaking mind! Bush is a christian who believes in pro-life, supporting school prayer, is against special gay rights, does not support gay marriage and believes in protecting the word God, in our nation's constitution. And you pick stem cell research as your argument that Bush is pandering to the right? Lord help us. Please make a better argument or concede your argument altogether. Thank you.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Howard Dean is insane
- Thread starter ARogueTrader
- Start date
You are going to use stem cell research, an issue where 99% of doctors themselves have no grasp on the issue, as your evidence that Bush panders to the right? Are you out of your freaking mind! Bush is a christian who believes in pro-life, supporting school prayer, is against special gay rights, does not support gay marriage and believes in protecting the word God, in our nation's constitution. And you pick stem cell research as your argument that Bush is pandering to the right? Lord help us. Please make a better argument or concede your argument altogether. Thank you.
Quote from Maverick74:
You are going to use stem cell research, an issue where 99% of doctors themselves have no grasp on the issue, as your evidence that Bush panders to the right? Are you out of your freaking mind! Bush is a christian who believes in pro-life, supporting school prayer, is against special gay rights, does not support gay marriage and believes in protecting the word God, in our nation's constitution. And you pick stem cell research as your argument that Bush is pandering to the right? Lord help us. Please make a better argument or concede your argument altogether. Thank you.
You are denying the fact, that Bush took a moderate position on stem cell research, where the extreme religious right had a zero research policy.
Had he been supportive of the religious right's position entirely, he would not have made the decision he made. Instead, he took a position that appeased the majority of the people, not the extremists. In this case, he did not pander to them.
Quote from ARogueTrader:
Gore is against the war on terror? Since when?
Gore is against tax cuts on principle? Hardly. He favors cutting taxes of the lower and middle income.
The rights of unborn children is a religious issue, as a fetus has yet to be classified scientifcally, or legally as a child.
Here is an excerpt from a Washington times article.
In this mission of sabotage, no political figure has stooped as low as Al Gore. In the wake of the war that went spectacularly well â the swiftest, most casualty-free liberation of a nation in human history â Al Gore has accused Mr. Bush of deceit and cynical manipulation of the facts with the purpose of misleading the American public and sacrificing U.S. soldiers. By linking these accusations to the Florida election recount, he and other Democrats have implied that the war was merely an instrument of a partisan plot to deprive them of their claim to the White House.
Mr. Gore's bottom line in his Aug. 7 speech attacking Mr. Bush's conduct of the war on terror was this: "Too many of our soldiers are paying the highest price for the strategic miscalculations, serious misjudgments and historic mistakes that have put them and our nation in harm's way."
Mr. Gore's attack will be recorded as a milestone in the sad decline of one of the great U.S. political parties. In breaking bipartisan ranks in the war on terrorism, Mr. Gore is seconded by both leaders of the Democratic congressional delegation and every Democratic presidential nominee with the exceptions of Mr. Lieberman and Mr. Edwards, and by the party's politically activist base.
Quote from Maverick74:
Here is an excerpt from a Washington times article.
In this mission of sabotage, no political figure has stooped as low as Al Gore. In the wake of the war that went spectacularly well â the swiftest, most casualty-free liberation of a nation in human history â Al Gore has accused Mr. Bush of deceit and cynical manipulation of the facts with the purpose of misleading the American public and sacrificing U.S. soldiers. By linking these accusations to the Florida election recount, he and other Democrats have implied that the war was merely an instrument of a partisan plot to deprive them of their claim to the White House.
Mr. Gore's bottom line in his Aug. 7 speech attacking Mr. Bush's conduct of the war on terror was this: "Too many of our soldiers are paying the highest price for the strategic miscalculations, serious misjudgments and historic mistakes that have put them and our nation in harm's way."
Mr. Gore's attack will be recorded as a milestone in the sad decline of one of the great U.S. political parties. In breaking bipartisan ranks in the war on terrorism, Mr. Gore is seconded by both leaders of the Democratic congressional delegation and every Democratic presidential nominee with the exceptions of Mr. Lieberman and Mr. Edwards, and by the party's politically activist base.
Is it logically possible to be supportive of the war on terrorism, but not supportive of the manner in which Bush decided to wage it?
This may surprise you, but the answer is yes.
The war on terrorism is not Bush's war on terrorism, is it? No, it is a worldwide war on terrorism, as evidenced by the support of the world for our actions in Afghanastan.
Many people, even some Republicans are not supportive in the manner that Bush is fighting the war on terrorism, as there, and were alternative approaches to solving the problem of terrorism.
Quote from ARogueTrader:
You are denying the fact, that Bush took a moderate position on stem cell research, where the extreme religious right had a zero research policy.
Had he been supportive of the religious right's position entirely, he would not have made the decision he made. Instead, he took a position that appeased the majority of the people, not the extremists. In this case, he did not pander to them.
Do you understand what the word pander means? It means you are going after a group of people who you ordinarily have nothing in common with for the sole purpose of getting their votes. Bush agrees with the religious right on 99% of the issues. So how can this be called pandering.
Quote from ARogueTrader:
Is it logically possible to be supportive of the war on terrorism, but not supportive of the manner in which Bush decided to wage it?
This may surprise you, but the answer is yes.
The war on terrorism is not Bush's war on terrorism, is it? No, it is a worldwide war on terrorism, as evidenced by the support of the world for our actions in Afghanastan.
Many people, even some Republicans are not supportive in the manner that Bush is fighting the war on terrorism, as there, and were alternative approaches to solving the problem of terrorism.
OK, let me ask you this, tell me what Gore did in his 8 years of office to prevent 9/11 from happening. Tell me what the Clinton/Gore administration did to further the cause of fighting terrorism. Did they not cut the size of our military, did they not cut the size of our intelligence dramatically, did they not take Bin Laden when he was offered to us by Sudan 5 TIMES! I would really like to hear from you what Gore and Clinton did while in office to fight this war on terrorism. Please opine. Thank you.
Quote from ARogueTrader:
There is a large difference between the extreme religious right, and a moderate Republican.
Agree. There are Anti NRA, Pro Life, liberal social program, conservative fiscal policy Republicans. The flipside is a Democrat like Senator Zell Miller who is basically a Republican in all but party.
Bush ran as a moderate Republican, but pandered to the extreme religious right to gain votes.
Agree. This is the game politicians from both parties play, the difference between running to get nominated and running to get elected.
The extreme religious right is not all that happy with Bush, and some of his moderate actions. [/B]
True, just as some of the liberal groups that were not well pleased by some of the things Pres. Clinton did while in office, these groups have little choice but to accept it, because the alternative (other party) is repugnant to them.
Wow that's 3 for 3 - let's just keep this little agreement party between you and me, ok?
Quote from Maverick74:
OK, let me ask you this, tell me what Gore did in his 8 years of office to prevent 9/11 from happening. Tell me what the Clinton/Gore administration did to further the cause of fighting terrorism. Did they not cut the size of our military, did they not cut the size of our intelligence dramatically, did they not take Bin Laden when he was offered to us by Sudan 5 TIMES! I would really like to hear from you what Gore and Clinton did while in office to fight this war on terrorism. Please opine. Thank you.
You can try to blame 911 on the previous administration, and the Democrats can blame Bush for his innability to find Bin Laden and Hussein.
911 was not Clinton's fault.
What kept Bush from stengthening airport security the day he got into office?
Nothing. However, I don't blame him for 911 either.
It happened on his watch, he was commander and chief at the time, but I don't blame him for 911.
It was not the lack of military cuts or intelligence cuts that allowed 911 to happen.
It was the lack of security here at home, and it caught nearly everyone off guard.
How we are responding to the threat of future terrorism is the issue, and there are different ideas on how to proceed in that battle.
Quote from TriPack:
Agree. There are Anti NRA, Pro Life, liberal social program, conservative fiscal policy Republicans. The flipside is a Democrat like Senator Zell Miller who is basically a Republican in all but party.
Agree. This is the game politicians from both parties play, the difference between running to get nominated and running to get elected.
True, just as some of the liberal groups that were not well pleased by some of the things Pres. Clinton did while in office, these groups have little choice but to accept it, because the alternative (other party) is repugnant to them.
Wow that's 3 for 3 - let's just keep this little agreement party between you and me, ok?
I try not to disagree with reason and common sense.