Re: Why are over 80% of Dock Chatters Republicans
Originally posted by woodrat:<br /> Gee 12, I thought Iraq HAD a government, now you tell me it doesn't.
<br />Correct ---Sadamn is in coalition custody,and his sons are Purina Worm Chow....His regime is history.<br />Iraq is pretty much the chosen land for anarchists at present. Folks who don't want a democratic form of government,chosen by it's people,are detonating amoungst those people, and those sent to liberate it (a task the coalition sucessfully completed). In between fighting Islamic "insurgents", they are there trying to provide security for Iraq's first FREE election.<br />Regardless of your politics, you simply HAVE to feel glad for the Iraqi people,and a modicum of pride that it was your nation which went into harms way to provide for that. <br />
Originally posted by woodrat:<br /><br />You don't know jack about me, or socialists and anarchists evidently, or you wouldn't lump them together. They're not the same at all.
<br />Why not? the stated "lump" are all allied with terrorists, so why not lump them together? It makes it easier to keep one eye on the whole motley crew.<br />Besides,Webster knows
<br />
Originally posted by woodrat:<br /><br />You have nicely revealed that at least in your world, conservative does NOT mean smaller, less intrusive government, or states rights. I already knew this, but its nice to see you declare it so proudly: Strong central government, meddling in local affairs wherever the bible is not followed as law. You try and throw in the "get the govt off the people's backs" thing, but then shoot it down in the same sentence "requiring lots of order" presumably to be laid down by the big daddy central government. But only as long as your particular Big Daddy is in power. When some democratic big daddy is in power, then you guys are all about states rights and small government. Ho Hum. I mean, how boring is that kind of bland partisan double standard?
<br />That was simply meant to anger me, and it did a little. But then, I consider the source.<br />I am a conservative. You can figure it out eventually. But if not, ask around.<br /><br />
Originally posted by woodrat:<br /><br />BTW 12, none of the examples of states rights issues had anything at all to do with states rights. They were lawsuits brought by individuals or groups. Nice try, but totally unrelated.<br />
<br />Oh, I see....state's rights, not staites rites, right?
The lawyer lobby of the democrat party is well known, and is a large part of thier current troubles.Personally, I am kind of glad, because it may have added a few more votes from former buisness owners who got litigated to the pooe house.<br />We can get into that discussion sometime if you'd like, but apparently, you were talking about N Korean state's rights?? <br />who knows, beside you?<br />
Originally posted by woodrat:<br /><br />and as far as sticking to subjects you know something about, I'm talking about where you continually put words in my mouth that were never there. But hey, that's the hazards of debating in an open forum like this. carry on! <br /><br />
<br />Again, I really don't care how you feel about any of it, I'll opine on any subject I care to,with whatever brain I have,thank you very much. I state my mind,and allways will.<br />I never put words in your mouth,I
"quote you" to the point of silliness! I do so in an open forum.I do so with pride and self-confidence.<br /><br />
Originally posted by woodrat:<br /><br />For the record though:<br /><br />I do NOT advocate the overthrow of the government.
<br />That's not a very good stand on the issues, if you call yourself an anarchist. And if don't want to call yourself an "anarchist" anymore because of this prerequisite, why not just relabel yourself again. I won't care, and don't think it's any of my buisness anyhow.I only werk with what version you present at any given time.It's a black and white thing to me. I will debate whoever you present yourself as on the topics here as you present them, and the ideologies, as they are proclaimed. Don't let me stand in your way,or put words in your mouth....Proclaim them yourself.<br /><br />
Originally posted by woodrat:<br /><br />I do NOT think that humans in general are ready for self government, let alone anarchy.
<br />I 100% agree with that. As a matter of fact, it's part of my faith that I've been taught (and believe),that
any government of man is destined to fail. Even America some day.<br />That is in God's hands. Even if somehow, we overcame our human ways and formed "Shangrila", an asteroid is going to flatten it, or the sun will go out, or....<br />That is God's call,not ours.<br />
Originally posted by woodrat:<br /><br />I do NOT wish for the US to be defeated in iraq, but <br />I did NOT think we were right to go there in the first place, either.
<br />If you do not wish for the US to be defeated, why do you encourage it's enemies? It's by default that you do this, but it's in allmost every post on the subject.<br />You're not allone. You have the papers with headlines as I described in an earlier thread, regarding Bush's stand on Rumsfeld and the Iraqi people, taken out of context, and giving the Islamic "insurgents" a propaganda shot in the arm, on a daily basis. This practice goes beyond wrong, for anyone wanting to see democracy formed and defended sucessfully over there. It is "counter-productive".<br />
Originally posted by woodrat:<br /><br />I DO think that the federal government should stick to the duties enumerated for it in the constitution, and stop inventing new tasks for itself.
<br />I think the fronts should be limitted too...Meet the enemy with overwhelming force and all that rot.<br />
Originally posted by woodrat:<br /><br />I DO think that giving any party's agenda a "proctological exam" should be done on a regular basis, and that is a duty of people who claim to be self governing. It separates the intellectually honest and the actual participants in self government from the followers.
<br />Sure.I would agree, but there's that pesky war thing again, and Mike Moore and his droogies, Gannett publications and George soros, doing said exam through the nostrils with a gerbil wearin a cap-light!<br /><br />
Originally posted by woodrat:<br />I DO think that the administration in power has a much larger scheme in mind that they have NOT shared with we the people, and if they DID share it, even some of their most avid supporters might not be so keen on it. I think it involves rapidly and continually increasing the scope and power of the central government, using the ongoing and ill-defined war as an excuse.
<br />We do have secrets for sure.That's because they are secret. Alqueda,allong with me and you, are clueless. That is good.<br />But this alterior motive you elude to would serve zero purpose to any free country....self-depricating! They have kids too,y'know.<br /> Make no mistake, the admin does not want to bring down freedom.It's protecting freedom with all the resources it has after the Clinton military purges. And I'll be the first to admit that Bush sr started "scaling-back" bases after the sucessfull liberation of Kuwait, but NEVER planned to nueter it---- But Clinton decimated it! And yet, "you go to war with the army you have".<br />We did. <br />We are winning. <br />But you're NOT HELPING!<br />You're conspiring,Mark. George Noory would question this theory of alterior motive, if not your motives behind it the theory. This is where I tend to go too, because I can conspire too. And it's only because I care deeply for Life, Liberty, and the pursuit with twin yammies... and I will care to my last breath.
