As Bill O'Reilly said today, we need the Dems so we'll get a clue about some of the goings-ons on Capital Hill. The balance is necessary for the system to work. Checks and balances sorta thing.

PS Registered Republican, here-- about as traditional as they come too.

I agree 100%, Kuan. Only problem is that many times there is no other option available. I voted for the elder Bush because I couldn't stand Clinton.

What we need is "None of the Above" available as an option. If the candidtates the parties give us to choose from are terrible, let's be able to send them packing until they come up with someone worth electing!!

Yup! and now that your dad's "rich", according to the Dems, he should be taxed at a higher rate than the "regular" people since he now has more than they. God forbid that someone who worked hard to be a success should be allowed to keep the fruit of their labor!

Man! this thread got me going!

This is probably not a good idea but she has a good voting record apart from the welfare issues and the liberation of kuwait.

You are correct, the Green Party is the most socialist-leaning party since the Socialist Party! But the Democrats are catching up fast!...

If you are a Democrat and believe in capitalism and free trade, you might want to review the actions of many of your elected Democratic Party officials! They don't seem to share your views!

If you think Libertarians are just like Republicans, then you know NOTHING about Libertarians. Maybe a little research is in order. Here's a reading assignment: www.lp.org/issues

A few Republicans are running around pretending to be in support of "Libertarian-esque" issues, such as smaller government, tax reform, privatization, etc...but they have yet to prove it to me! They have just realized how many VOTES the Libertarians have been siphoning off of their candidates, and are trying to plug the leak with such gratuitous tactics.

To answer your last question, Pelosi was against taking action then, and she is now. Back then, our action was in defense of Kuwait, and one could theoretically argue that it was none of our business. NOW, it is very much our business, as we are in defense of our OWN country! Anyone who actually believes Hussein when he says he is not stockpiling weapons and supplying terrorists with money and weapons has to be a certifiable idiot. The proof has been accumilating for YEARS. He has done nothing but lie, deceive, and oppress in the past, so why are there so many suckers running around now who take him at his word?

Action now in Iraq would OBVIOUSLY be a pre-emptive strike! In some situations, it only makes sense to do so. Actually this is somewhat in disagreement with the "offical" Libertarian view on the situation, but I don't care. If you KNOW a punch is coming, are you going to wait and just get tagged in the eye, or are you going to hit first? Think of the Iraq situation as "preventative maintenance"...Or common sense, really. Example: Let's say you live in Malibu, in an expensive neighborhood, and there's a big forest fire nearby, as often happens in CA. It gets closer and closer, and your neighbor's house 4 or 5 houses down the street catches fire. Do you sit at home in denial, ignoring it and hoping it goes away, or do you go help your neighbor put the fire out? You'd better think ahead a little and help your neighbor, or YOUR house will be next!

Mike

__________________
_____
1979 300 SD
350,000 miles
_____
1982 300D-gone---sold to a buddy
_____
1985 300TD
270,000 miles
_____
1994 E320
not my favorite, but the wife wanted it

www.myspace.com/mikemover
www.myspace.com/openskystudio
www.myspace.com/speedxband
www.myspace.com/openskyseparators
www.myspace.com/doubledrivemusic

Back then, Hussein had already attacked Kuwait, so we had more of a perogative to help the Kuwaitis. Right now, nothing of that gravity has happened.

If Hussein was so dangerous, why didn't we go after him when W. first got into office? Has he only been a threat since June or July of this summer? It would seem to be that way, judging by how news articles read.

He may have all the nuclear and chemical weapon material that he can dream of, but last time I checked, North Korea and China supposedly had them too, and we aren't exactly kissing cousins with them.

But I guess a preemptive strike on Iraq would be a lot easier, wouldn't it? Besides, Hussein tried to have Bush Sr. assassinated...

Thanks for the info on the Libertarian stance though.

-Sam

Well, if you want to go there...OK. Saddam SHOULD have been removed and/or killed the first time around, when Bush Sr. was in office, but since the job wasn't finished then, and of course Slick Willie Clinton was too much of a wuss to even deal with anything, including Hussein, bin Laden, or anything else other than his female interns.. so now Bush Jr. is left to finish the job, and to take the heat from whiney pacifists who apparently have selective amnesia and don't remember much recent Iraq history, such as:

Saddam attacking Kuwait...

or Saddam blowing up hundreds of oil wells, causing huge amounts of environmental and financial damage (by the way, a lot of the same "enviromentalists" that were mourning that situation are now defending the guy! unbelieveable!)....

or Saddam developing nukes then...

or developing and USING chemical weapons then, including on his own people...

or him commiting genocide on certain ethnic groups in Iraq...

or his countless breaches of the post-Gulf War agreements with the UN...

or his giving the previous UN inspectors the boot...

or his assasination plot on Bush, Sr. (that alone is enough reason for us to go after him...He started the "game", we can finish it!)...

or his forces constantly firing on US and European planes and positions enforcring the "no-fly" zone...

Shall I go on?...Or does this sound like the resume' of a "harmless leader" who has done nothing to deserve his current predicament?

You're welcome.

Mike

__________________
_____
1979 300 SD
350,000 miles
_____
1982 300D-gone---sold to a buddy
_____
1985 300TD
270,000 miles
_____
1994 E320
not my favorite, but the wife wanted it

www.myspace.com/mikemover
www.myspace.com/openskystudio
www.myspace.com/speedxband
www.myspace.com/openskyseparators
www.myspace.com/doubledrivemusic

I'm not for war at all I think funding his enemies is the best solution. I have three brothers on their way a Pilot, Army officer and Coast Guard officer canidate so obviously I am a little concerned.

Although I am against the war I take the patriotic approach and support my country's current leadership, in case your wondering I did support Clinton when he was Comander-in-chief.

Yes, that is one issue, and possibly the only one, on which I strongly differ with the Libertarian party's "official" position. I'm normally a firm supporter of non-intervention and minding our own business, but not when doing nothing will allow inevitable harm to come to US interests in the forseeable future, as will be the case if we don't do SOMETHING about Saddam, and North Korea. "Preventative maintenance" must sometimes be done...You cannot always wait until something is "broken", because then it becomes an even BIGGER problem!

Mike

__________________
_____
1979 300 SD
350,000 miles
_____
1982 300D-gone---sold to a buddy
_____
1985 300TD
270,000 miles
_____
1994 E320
not my favorite, but the wife wanted it

www.myspace.com/mikemover
www.myspace.com/openskystudio
www.myspace.com/speedxband
www.myspace.com/openskyseparators
www.myspace.com/doubledrivemusic

.....Termites comes to mind

LMAO! haaahaaaaaaaahahaha!........ Oil leaks, too!

Mike

__________________
_____
1979 300 SD
350,000 miles
_____
1982 300D-gone---sold to a buddy
_____
1985 300TD
270,000 miles
_____
1994 E320
not my favorite, but the wife wanted it

www.myspace.com/mikemover
www.myspace.com/openskystudio
www.myspace.com/speedxband
www.myspace.com/openskyseparators
www.myspace.com/doubledrivemusic