Republicans Believe

[Guest]

Things Republicans Believe

Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you're a conservative radio host. Then it's an illness and you need our prayers for your recovery.

The United States should get out of the United Nations, and our highest national priority is enforcing U.N. resolutions against Iraq.

Government should relax regulation of Big Business and Big Money but crack down on individuals who use marijuana to relieve the pain of illness.

"Standing Tall for America" means firing your workers and moving their jobs to India.

A woman can't be trusted with decisions about her own body, but multi-national corporations can make decisions affecting all mankind without regulation.

Jesus loves you, and shares your hatred of homosexuals and Hillary Clinton.

The best way to improve military morale is to praise the troops in speeches while slashing veterans' benefits and combat pay.

Group sex and drug use are degenerate sins unless you someday run for governor of California as a Republican.

If condoms are kept out of schools, adolescents won't have sex.

A good way to fight terrorism is to belittle our long-time allies, then demand their cooperation and money.

HMOs and insurance companies have the interest of the public at heart.

Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy. Providing health care to all Americans is socialism.

Global warming and tobacco's link to cancer are junk science, but creationism should be taught in schools. Man and the dinosaurs did live together.

Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush's daddy made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business with him and a bad guy when Bush needed a "we can't find Bin Laden" diversion.

A president lying about an extramarital affair is an impeachable offense. A president lying to enlist support for a war in which thousands die is solid defense policy.

Government should limit itself to the powers named in the Constitution, which include banning gay marriages and censoring the Internet.

The public has a right to know about Hillary's cattle trades, but George Bush's driving record is none of our business.

What Bill Clinton did in the 1960s is of vital national interest, but what Bush did in the '80s is irrelevant.

Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is communist, but trade with China and Vietnam is vital to a spirit of international harmony.

God told George Bush to invade the middle east. The whole middle east conflict is written in the Book of Revelation and there is nothing we can do but God's will.

[Guest]

God Bless America!! I was always questioned why I was a democrat....now I have some really good solid answers!

[Guest]

Another great post JJ. God Bless America, indeed! :#1:http://www.millan.net/minimations/smileys/politics/obamayes.gif (http://www.millan.net)

[Guest]

Was Hillary not GREAT last night? :clap2: 040

I laughed and I cried...she should have been on the ticket...but I know she is not going anywhere, anytime soon....

I missed Michelle's speach the night before...looking forward to seeing good old Bill tonight...and Biden....but I bet Obama is going to blow them all away on thursday night!!

:hot: :hot: :hot: :hot: :hot: :hot: :hot: :hot: :hot:

[Guest]

Mariab, I thought Hillary was fabulous last night! She hit every point with grace and style. Yes, I wish she was on the ticket also, but she'll be back. Michelle's speech was wonderful. I'm also looking forward to Bill and Biden. I'll be tuned in!

Yes, I think Senator Obama is going to blow them away on Thursday night. I also think he's going to blow them away during the debates. The contrast between McCain and Obama will be vast. I think it's going to hark-en back to the days of the Nixon/Kennedy debates. The debates did Nixon in.

Three cheers for Obama! 040 040 040

[Guest]

:agree: :agree: :agree: :agree: :agree:


040 040 040

[Guest]

Mariab, I thought Hillary was fabulous last night! She hit every point with grace and style. Yes, I wish she was on the ticket also, but she'll be back. Michelle's speech was wonderful. I'm also looking forward to Bill and Biden. I'll be tuned in!

Yes, I think Senator Obama is going to blow them away on Thursday night. I also think he's going to blow them away during the debates. The contrast between McCain and Obama will be vast. I think it's going to hark-en back to the days of the Nixon/Kennedy debates. The debates did Nixon in.

Three cheers for Obama! 040 040 040


I was going to send you a message...She was so good last night. The opening...No Way, No How, No McCain. ....lines and the Harriet Tubman lines.

And the were you in for me or were you in for...lines

The whole thing was electric....

[Guest]

McCain is running an ad right now were Hillary stated that McCain is much more qualified and experinced to be President than Obama.She stated this in the primary which wasn't too long ago. I'm sure it's YouTube if you want to look at it.

;D

[Guest]

I'll add my thoughts to this thread the same way I have to a couple others posted on one forum or another. Can't we have some meaningful discussion of the important issues facing us in making our voting decision? Personal attacks on one candidate or the other are non-productive and childish.

Here, try this one...

All would probably agree that U.S. dependence on imported oil has reached a critical point. The price of oil and gasoline will not likely decline very much and that alone will precipitate a change in the American way of life. Barack Obama presents an attractive and seemingly thoughtful multi-faceted program for reducing our dependence on imported oil. But he fails to explain how all the expenditures he delineates will be paid for without increasing the federal deficit and the national debt. He does not explain how some of his proposals which require approval by the states (new nuclear power plants) could be accomplished. His proposals sound nice, but are far from being executable plans.

John McCain's primary proposal is to permit more offshore drilling by the big oil companies, an action that most experts say will result in a reduction of gas prices at the pump of only pennies. And even then, it might take ten years to achieve. McCain's other campaign proposals on the issue are riddled with words like "change", "challenge", propose", "establish" and "encourage", but he presents few plans for resolving the issue that withstand even cursory scrutiny. Paying for McCain's proposals is not a big issue because he isn't proposing any significant federal investments for solving the problem.


Which candidate is more likely to take actions that will seriously reduce our dependence on imported oil? Why?

[Guest]

McCain is running an ad right now were Hillary stated that McCain is much more qualified and experinced to be President than Obama.She stated this in the primary which wasn't too long ago. I'm sure it's YouTube if you want to look at it.

;D


Don't need UTUBE...It was on in Colorado just after her speech....Did you catch her response...She said I am Hillary Clinton and I Don't Approve of that message.

Maybe you missed it.

Besides which I am clearly on record as voting NO for president this year.

[Guest]

As far as I'm concerned if you don't vote you have not fulfilled your responsibility as a citizen. If you don't fulfill your citizenship responsibilities you should loose your rights as a citizen, particularly your right to complain.

[Guest]

As far as I'm concerned if you don't vote you have not fulfilled your responsibility as a citizen. If you don't fulfill your citizenship responsibilities you should loose your rights as a citizen, particularly your right to complain.


Ok I will go to vote....I will cast a vote for everything and then vote NO for President.

[Guest]

...She was so good last night. The opening...No Way, No How, No McCain. ....lines and the Harriet Tubman lines.

And the were you in for me or were you in for...lines

The whole thing was electric....

She is definitely a class act. It was interesting, too, to watch Bill Clinton as she gave her speech. He was obviously very proud of her, and seemed a little sad as well, probably thinking of what could have been. But according to the pundits, she gave the speech of her life and her speech was a unifying one that was needed. I hope that if Obama wins, she is offered a high ranking post of some sort.

[Guest]

Kahuna,

I think the answer to your question is clearly McCain if only because his approach is the one that is truly multi-faceted. How can Obama's proposals, which ignore existing technologies like oil and nuclear be taken seriously? McCain has been a long time proponent of new technologies but is pragmatic enough to realize that we must use existing technologies as a bridge to the future.

I really don't see any argument against offsetting our dependence on foreign oil by drilling offshore. The argument that it is years away is paper thin - as is the argument that it could spoil beaches. I wonder how many people realize that with today's drilling technologies the oil platforms can be destroyed by a Cat 5 hurricane and still not result in any environmental damage. When Katrina hit, over a hundred platforms were damaged or destroyed, yet there was no environmental damage.

I just wish that McCain would open his mind to ANWR for drilling. To me, that is the perfect place to drill. That part of the preserve is a barren wasteland that has no aesthetic import and it has been proven by Prudhoe Bay drilling that wildlife and drilling can coexist quite nicely. The amount of oil that would come from there could completely eliminate any need for oil from Saudi Arabia.

The other technology that needs to be expanded is nuclear. To me that is the perfect technology to complement plug-in hybrid vehicles. With plenty of cheap, non-greenhouse gas producing electricity fueling cars for their typical daily commutes, our need for oil would drop precipitously. Yet, Obama ignores this technology as well, preferring to ignore the near-term as he paints a utopian picture of the future - with no bridge to get there from the present.

[Guest]

Oh my goodness! Do you ever have that backwards. Senator Obama is the one that wants to put all possibilities on the table. McCain's hung up on off-shore drilling which we will not benefit for 10 years and then the benefit is only about 2 cents!

McCain a supporter of new technologies? He can't even use a computer! Give me a break! :o

[Guest]

I suspect that you have never listened to McCain. He has long been a proponent of "clean" energy. Just that he also realizes that you need a transition plan to get there. Obama is the one who wants to take entire technologies off the table.

[Guest]

Well, you couldn't be more wrong, so let's agree to disagree. ;)

[Guest]

Well, if I'm wrong, I would like to at least know why. I have indicated two areas that Obama does not want to push as far as areas to gain energy independence. If you are correct that Obama's policy is more all-encompassing than McCain's it should be a simple matter to list the technology concepts that McCain would be reluctant to endorse. I am more than willing to be enlightened.

[Guest]

No oil spilled from Katrina?

In May 2006, the U.S. Minerals Management Service published their offshore damage assessment: 113 platforms totally destroyed, and - more importantly - 457 pipelines damaged, 101 of those major lines with 10" or larger diameter. At least 741,000 gallons were spilled from 124 reported sources (the Coast Guard calls anything over 100,000 gallons a "major" spill).

Let me guess..........You only listen to Fox Noise

[Guest]

Jim,

No I don't recall any reports by any media, Fox or otherwise, on this. However, I appreciate people who don't put words into my mouth that were not said. I said that there was no negative environmental impact from Katrina. If you had quoted the full report rather than just the portion that served your purpose, we would get closer to the truth. Here's what it said:

MMS also is releasing the following tally of hurricane-related oil/condensate/chemical spills in Federal offshore OCS waters as reported to MMS and the National Response Center. Six spills of 1,000 barrels or greater were reported; the largest of these was 3,625 barrels of condensate reported by the Gulf South Pipeline Company in the Eugene Island Block 51 area. A total of 146 spills of 1 barrel or greater have been reported in the Federal OCS waters; 37 of these were 50 barrels or greater. No shoreline or wildlife impacts were noted from these spills.

But, you may ask, how can thousands of barrels of oil be spilled with no environmental impact. The answer to this is simple - it wasn't oil, but "condensate" that was spilled.

So, perhaps rather than a condescending swipe at Fox News and people who disagree with you, it would serve you well to report the truth rather than the party line.

[Guest]

"Offshore, there were relatively few spills," said Roland Guidry, head of the Louisiana Oil Spill Coordinator’s Office. "Inland, we have a lot of exposed pipelines and tank batteries along the shore. Those are the things that gave us trouble."

Mostly on-shore sources created oil spills that came to 8.2-million gallons, and possibly reached as high as 9- to 10-million gallons, Guidry said. That includes spills from platforms, pipelines, tankers, oil refineries and storage facilities.

The upper end of that estimate would place the gallons spilled near the same scale as the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill, one of the worst environmental disasters in U.S. history. The important difference here is that the Valdez spill — at close to 11-million gallons — was highly concentrated, while the Katrina and Rita spills were from numerous sources and spread widely.

One of worst spills occurred at a refinery in Meraux, La., operated by Murphy Oil USA Inc., which before the storm handled about 630,000 gallons of oil a day. As Hurricane Katrina roared ashore, it breached an above-ground oil storage tank that disgorged more than a million gallons of oil into a residential area, tainting about 3,500 homes and businesses. As the result of a federal lawsuit, Murphy Oil agreed to a settlement that totaled $330-million.

A 2006 report from the U.S. Coast Guard detailed six major oil spills, including the Murphy Oil spill, five medium spills, and approximately 5,000 minor spills that occurred in the wake of the storms.

Environmental groups agree that the worst damage occurred away from the offshore drilling platforms, but say it's silly to think that the two things are unrelated.

GO GATORS!

[Guest]

So, now you want to shift the discussion away from oil platforms where there is a general consensus that they withstood a Cat 5 hurricane without environmental damage. Now you want to talk about refineries.

OK, well regardless of whether the crude oil comes from offshore platforms or via tankers from foreign sources, we will always need refineries and storage facilities to deal with it. If you want to build new refineries away from the shore and to tighter environmental standards, I am with you. However, to block the ability to produce domestic crude offshore because of a refinery issue does not make any sense at all when we have an issue of being held captive to foreign sources of energy.

Actually, by producing oil offshore and pumping it via pipelines to shore you remove one of the biggest environmental risks that comes from shipped oil - the need to transfer it from the tankers. By eliminating this requirement you remove the possibility of another Exxon Valdez accident. Instead, you could pump the oil via underground pipelines safely inland where the refineries could be located away from the threat of hurricane surges.

[Guest]

Since the thread has gravitated to the energy independence front....all the tit for tat aside for a moment.....on this great continent of North America, I find it very interesting that Canada and Mexico are both exploring and drilling AND building new refineries!!!!!!!!!!!!

Now I just wonder what could be the motivation to actually do something about energy independence.

One would thing they were the worlds largest using of crude looking toward the future.....

I wonder if it could be they don't have a divided approach on determing the fate of their Country.

How does France just go off and use nuclear power to generate 80% of their electrical power using nuclear power.....simple! Yes that is the answer...simple....they a priority in their Country.

Anyway. The whole urinating contest over energy Independence already has a track record we are doomed to continue......DOING NOTHING UNTIL IT IS TOO LATE....wanna bet?

BTK

[Guest]

njblue
I just saw your avitar...GO BLUE

Listen your wasting your time trying to have a logical conversation with the Lord Obama supporters on totv. They can't tell you what they are for , only what their against.

They say It will be 10 years till we get oil if we start now(even if experts say 18 mo to 3 years). The dirty secrete is It will be longer than 10 years before you can pull into a gas station and fill up with McDonalds french fry oil or Ethanol or any other biofuel. Wind and solar will take at least as long. Remember the solar panels on roofs 20 years ago? there is a reason they all went away, Anyway we need gas today and for many years into the future and just saying we should stop using gas/oil now or that we should be paying much more to force us in the direction they want us to go in is just silly. Benj

[Guest]

I suspect that you have never listened to McCain. He has long been a proponent of "clean" energy. Just that he also realizes that you need a transition plan to get there. Obama is the one who wants to take entire technologies off the table.


Actually he is new convert to clean energy....

http://thinkprogress.org/wonkroom/2008/08/05/mccain-comprehensive-approach/

[Guest]

I might suggest that a good place to start considering which candidate might be better with regard to energy independence would be their own websites. If you read what they have to say you'll probably be surprised that they're very similar. But you may be disappointed at the lack of specificity and particularly the absence of discussion on how much their proposals would cost ad how they will be paid for.

Both candidates are going to have to get a whole lot more specific in the next 9-10 weeks if any of us will really be able to make an intelligent choice of which one is the better candidate on this issue.

[Guest]

Speaking of offshore drilling
Los Angeles Times

Thursday, May 30, 2002

Washington -- President Bush moved Wednesday to prevent oil and gas drilling in a large tract off the Florida coast and in the Everglades, despite his administration's emphasis on increasing domestic energy supplies.

Bush's decision to preserve what he termed "some of our nation's most beautiful natural treasures" should bolster his environmental credentials and help his brother Jeb, who is running for re-election as Florida's governor.

Jeb Bush conceded that he stands to benefit from his brother's move. "But more importantly," he added during a visit to the White House, "it is good public policy, and when there's a convergence of good politics and good public policy, I don't think we should be ashamed about it."

Under Wednesday's announcement, the federal government will pay $115 million to oil companies to drop their fight to drill some 30 miles off the Florida panhandle. The companies purchased drilling rights in the 1980s but faced obstacles put up by Republican and Democratic state officials who objected that drilling could wreak havoc on the panhandle's famous white sand beaches and the state's tourism industry.

The federal government will spend an additional $120 million to buy oil and gas drilling rights held by individuals in three sensitive areas of the Everglades.

It was the second time that the president has scaled back potential drilling off the Florida coast. Last July, the administration reduced by 75 percent the size of a new offshore tract in another part of the Gulf of Mexico in response to objections from Jeb Bush.

Congressional approval is not required for the administration to buy back the gulf leases from Chevron, Conoco and Murphy Oil in the area known as Destin Dome. But Congress will need to approve the purchase of the drilling rights in three sensitive areas of the Everglades ecosystem -- the Big Cypress National Preserve, the Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge and the Ten Thousand Islands National Wildlife Refuge.

Those liberals always get in the way!

[Guest]

Well, I think the subject of this thread says it all. The Republicans "Believe" in something. That is, they have a set of core beliefs. The Dems only "believe" in getting elected; at whatever the cost.

[Guest]

Well, I think the subject of this thread says it all. The Republicans "Believe" in something. That is, they have a set of core beliefs. The Dems only "believe" in getting elected; at whatever the cost.


Please do not state what I believe!

[Guest]

I am sorry, that it not what I meant, but I could understand why you might think so. It is more of a party leadership thing. In securing the nomination, Sen. Obama had to run to the left of Sen. Clinton. When he got the nomination he had to move to the right to go after the independent votes. He is "evolving" his position on offshore drilling, for example. No one but the Ward Churchills of the world care. Who are they going to vote for, Sen. McCain?
When Sen. McCain floated a trial balloon that he might chose a centrist like Sen. Lieberman, the base of the GOP went wild. It seems to me that they are more about being philosophically pure than winning an election. I am not saying that it is good or bad, but it is what is.
The one time that I am embarrassed to be in the GOP is when I see someone like Ann Coulter "perform". She should take a lesson from the Dems.

[Guest]

Wait a minute...didn't this thread start out with the Republicans being told what they believe?

I am a Republican, albeit not a very strong one anymore, and even I was insulted by that bigoted diatribe.

[Guest]

You are both right #6/SusanTom and I apologize~!!!

I have learned my lesson on this forum....and will not be posting anymore unless I have an educated opinion or something intelligent to say...at least it will be intelligent in my opinion.

Again....much apologies and love to you both.

[Guest]

Cassie, no offense taken and thank you for the apology.

This forum is new for both of us. Differences of opinion given respectfully make the world go round. Insults shut it down.

I think we both agree on the basics of respect and freedom of speech. I look forward to hearing your opinions, cause I bet you will research them first, and they will be based on fact.
:)

[Guest]

My hope dear Susan is that they will be based on fact...however we do not know what fact is anymore....other than the following....

I love living here....would not be anywhere else on earth....and can't wait till I know you are on your way so I can plan the party I promised you!!!!

On another note....I will do my best to find out the facts in regards to politics...however if I can not find fact....I will not post... atleast in this thread...forum...etc.....