GOP DEBATE

Chit-chat, current events

Moderators: Sue Sue Applegate, movieman1957, moira finnie, Lzcutter

Post Reply
User avatar
ken123
Posts: 1807
Joined: April 14th, 2007, 4:08 pm
Location: Chicago

GOP DEBATE

Post by ken123 »

Did anyone watch the Republican Presidential Debate on MSNBC tonight ?
:roll:
User avatar
Dewey1960
Posts: 2514
Joined: April 17th, 2007, 7:52 am
Location: Oakland, CA

Post by Dewey1960 »

I simply couldn't bring myself to watch such a thoroughly unattractive group of people all together at one time.
User avatar
ken123
Posts: 1807
Joined: April 14th, 2007, 4:08 pm
Location: Chicago

Post by ken123 »

Dewey1960 wrote:I simply couldn't bring myself to watch such a thoroughly unattractive group of people all together at one time.


" ZOMBIES AT THE REAGAN LIBRARY ", might be an appropriate title for the gathering of GOP hopefuls :wink:
User avatar
movieman1957
Administrator
Posts: 5510
Joined: April 15th, 2007, 3:50 pm
Location: MD

Post by movieman1957 »

No. I couldn't watch it anymore than I could the Democrats having their "lovefest" last week.
Chris

"Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana."
pktrekgirl
Administrator
Posts: 641
Joined: April 14th, 2007, 1:08 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA, USA

Post by pktrekgirl »

No, I didn't watch it.

Normally I would because I typically vote for some Democrats and some Republicans. I have never been a straight party-line voter.

Until now.

Now I'm really pissed off at the Republican Party for not reeling in Bush/Cheney. And I will not ever vote Republican again as long as the Republicans continue to support individuals who are committing war crimes (the torture of suspects, the gulag of secret prisons in Eastern Europe and elsewhere, the holding of people indefinitely without charges or access to legal counsel or the press, etc).

Until the human rights abuses stop, I am finished voting Republican.
User avatar
movieman1957
Administrator
Posts: 5510
Joined: April 15th, 2007, 3:50 pm
Location: MD

Post by movieman1957 »

[quote="pktrekgirl"
the holding of people indefinitely without charges or access to legal counsel or the press, etc).
[/quote]

They're not American citizens and are not subject to the provisions of the Constitution. They are more "prisoners of war". (Though true soldiers they are not and probably wouldn't know the "Geneva Convention" if they fell over it.) They are certainly not entitled to meet the press. That's not to say you don't have some valid points on the way the whole thing has come along.

The Republicans don't have the ability or the right to "reeling" in the President. When any President gives up his role as Commander-in-Chief, he's done.
Chris

"Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana."
pktrekgirl
Administrator
Posts: 641
Joined: April 14th, 2007, 1:08 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA, USA

Post by pktrekgirl »

^ I don't see them as prisoners of war. Not the ones at Gitmo. And we don't even KNOW who the detainees are elsewhere (like in Eastern Europe) - we can't even get THAT information. It's a big fat mystery. Which leads me to believe it unlikely that they are Iraqi combatants captured in the war zone. ;) More likely, they are more of the same - Muslim men, picked up all over the world on suspicious...or even falsified charges (and no...I wouldn't put it past Bush. This is the man who didn't bat an eyelash at executing men in Texas for crimes that OTHER PEOPLE admitted to doing.) and held without cause.

These are not 'prisoners of war'. I see them as being illegally detained individuals...all of whom share the unfortunate characteristic of a Muslim background.

And these individuals have rights under the Geneva Convention. Precious few of which we are abiding by.

I don't believe in any 'War on Terror'. That is just a ridiculously transparent term used as an excuse for the Bush Administration to round up and detain anyone they like, hold them without specific charges indefinitely, and abuse their legal and human rights.

War is declared against a COUNTRY. Not against 'terror'. The Bush Administration made it intentionally vague, jingoistic, and non-tangible precisely BECAUSE they wanted to claim they could do anything they liked, TO anyone they liked, and call all detainees 'prisoners of war' - even if they come from non-combatant countries. In short, being a Muslim man is enough to get one rounded up and declared a 'prisoner of war'. And that just isn't right. It's an abuse of the term 'prisoner of war', IMO. Not to mention being inherently racist.

The fact that Dubya claims they are prisoners of war, in my mind, only adds insult to injury. Because the implication is that we are too dumb to figure out what he's really doing...and who he is really doing it TO.

As for the Republican Party, I am well aware of the fact that they cannot fully control the President. But acting as a GROUP, they can certainly bring pressure to bear. If they really CARED, for example, about ending the gulags in Eastern Europe...or stopping prisoner abuse at Gitmo, they COULD just refuse to pass any of Dubya's requested legislation or his budget. In short, they could revolt and force him to listen.

IF it was that important to them to do the right thing.

As it is....they have all just sat there for 6 years, nodding their heads in agreement. UNTIL November's blood bath at the polls. Now, amazingly enough (NOT) they are all coming out of the woodwork, claiming to actually give a crap about what is happening. But in reality, they don't care about what's right - they care only about re-election.

Shoot...not even that many of them spoke up against TORTURE, 'fer cryin' out loud! They just sat there like lumps, smiling and waving and pontificating about how wonderful Dubya was and how evil the filthy liberals were for even QUESTIONING the Administrations policies. :roll:

No...I have precious little respect for the Republican Party these days.

They had the power to bring pressure to bear...but instead they chose to sit by and do nothing - either because they AGREED with these horrendous abuses of human rights...or because they were too cowardly to take a stand against evil.

Anyway...that is the way I see it. ;)
jdb1

Post by jdb1 »

JohnM wrote:
movieman1957 wrote:No. I couldn't watch it anymore than I could the Democrats having their "lovefest" last week.
I find our choices, on both sides, sad and pathetic. Still, I'll find someone to vote for, because there's nothing worse to me, than not voting!
I feel the same way, John - I hate the idea of not having a say in any free election, even if it's only to vote for the lesser of two evils. It's been so very long since we had truly clear choices - it's not that the candidates don't have opinions and platforms, it's that they are afraid to voice them.

My friend in England sent me some of the political brochures she collected last year from a by-election. That was something of a revelation for me. My comment to her was that here in the US no candidate would ever be so specific about what s/he did not like and exactly what s/he would do about it. Anyone here who does so is labelled a crank, no matter what the position.

The few times I have attended local political meetings where the candidates actually showed up (generally in Brooklyn the Democrats don't even bother, they know they are going to win, and Republicans don't dare show their faces), I always try to pin them down to some specific statement. Believe me, it's not easy - they just don't want to express a definite opinion about anything except "I love America" "I love Brooklyn" (they don't say NYC because here in Bklyn we are all separatists at heart) and "I love [insert appropriate to the neighborhood ethnic food/dance/song, etc.]"

I think it will remain a sad fact for me that the best presidential debate I ever saw was that live staged debate between Alan Alda and Jimmy Smits on "The West Wing." I would have happily voted for either one of them.
Post Reply