Am I a Minority on this site?

[blondsurfer]

I have to say that I pretty much that those in the gay community tend to vote democrat, I could be wrong. Most of the issues that are the concerns of the gay community are usually addressed by the Democratic party and not the Republican party- ie same sex marriage. The gay community tends to follow more liberal policies. But I'm and always have been a Conservative and have always gone the ways of the Republican party- Now don't crucify me for that, but that is the way I am and the way I was brought up. I'm against abortion for one, I believe in having a strong National Defense and I keep thinking the Republicans can do something to change the tax structure or tax codes. The issue I worry about the most is terroism which might be the one issue driving my vote and what may happen when we leave Iraq. Saw a show on Vietnam the other day, This country thought when we pulled out that the South Vietnamese Government and armed forces were prepared to handle themselves against the North Vietnamese- they weren't obviously. I worry about seeing a repeat of this- which could be much worse than the capture of Siagon. So go ahead call me an idiot, but these are the issues that worry me. So far both Hillary,Obama and even Ron Paul talk about bringing the troops home, but they do not mention how are they going to stabalize the region and pertect us and the rest of the world from terroism

 

[Orlandude]

The issue you worry about the most (terrorism) is the issue that repubs have fostered for the past 7 years, more commonly called "the fear card". Fact of the matter is that we will never "stabilize" the region (Iraq). Our very presence there is what created the instability in the first place. We invaded and occupied a religious region when we could have gone in there, got rid of Saddam and left. Occupation was as unacceptable to the middle east as it would be to millions around the world if they suddenly occupied the Vatican or Israel.

Read history. Terrorism has existed in the world for 3000 years, most of it the result of organized religion. It is not going to go away...not in any of our lifetimes. In that sense, I think that's what McCain meant when he said "we could be there for the next 100 years". If we don't draw the line somewhere, he's right. We will be.

 

[Xpione]

Hum..the Democrats(Hilalry & Obama, and others to want to withdraw troops) believe that by withdrawing troops, the Iraqi government will feel the preassure and step up their effort to build a stabalized Iraq. The Republicans, however, argue that if we withdraw, Iraq will be destable.

 

[White Eagle]

What the others said above. Our leaving Iraq will make them get off their collective asses and do something to stabilize their own country. Our being there is unlawful. War was not declared and we are occupying their country. When boy george went in to get Saddam he declared mission accomplished long ago. That's when we should have left. The Iraqis want us to leave, so therefore we should.
Welcome to the forum. There will be people saying the conservatives are wrong, me included, Just hang in there and don't take it personally.

 

[blondsurfer]

So let me ask you guys if the United States completely pulls our troops out of Iraq and out of the Middle East region- What will happen? Do you believe there will be a chance for more peace in the region, do you believe that no one will attack Iraq and take it over. Does the UN which is the biggest joke in the world take our place in the region or am I misunderstanding what the Dems are trying to do. Do they just want to scale back our presence and not totally leave the region. I would like to know their plans. They don't mention their plans in their debates, which bothers me. I know terroism is never going to go away, but I think it can be controlled from getting out of hand. I think if the United States leaves the region there will be bloodshed. I'll use the senario of Northern Ireland, The British know they can never pull their troops out of northern Ireland because all hell will break lose- I think our situation is quite similar. One thing is Sen. Biden's plan of subdividing the country will never work, but hey at least he had a plan so he is the one Democrat that at least mentioned a plan- so I give him some kudos for that. Another thing I don't like is that it is a trend for Democratic Presidents to initiate military cutbacks- both President Carter and President Clinton put through cutbacks which weakened our armforces- So many people bitch about Reagan and Bush spending so many dollars on the Military- they wouldn't have to if both Carter and Clinton would have left the military alone. They are other programs which they could have cut. Our National Security has always been my fear-even before I was able to vote, Carter scared the hell out of me with this issue. It will continue to be my fear, if McCain plays the fear card then fine it's my concern. So the Democrats need to be forthright up front about their plans, they need to show me that they are strong willed.

 

[hottie1982]

I respect your views, even though I
don't agree with them. One good thing
about jub is that you have the freedom
to express your views no matter what
they are!!

 

[gay4u2]

I tend to be more of a conservative, however I disagree on the war.

The conflict will never end. It doesnt matter how long we stay over there, as soon as we leave, things will most likely change for the worst.

I believe we should bring the troops home and build a great defense, and quit destroying our offense.

 

[JackFTwist]

I believe in having a strong National Defense and I keep thinking the Republicans can do something to change the tax structure or tax codes.

two questions: how old are you, and if you are between 18-46 when were your dates of military service?

and

how did that fiscal management work from 2001-2007 with the republicans running the house and senate and having the presidency? I presume after those six years, the war is over and the financial afffairs of the nation are all in order since they had total control

 

[andysayshi]

Diversity of opinion and beliefs is what makes Democracy necessary, so I assure you I respect and defend entirely your beliefs and ideals.

However, allow me to offer my own opinion on some of your original post:

I believe in having a strong National Defense

Unfortunately, the current Administration has proved to have stretched National Defense to braking point. With 120,000 troops, many from the Reserves, caught up in Iraq, the US is currently more defenseless at home than it has been since the Vietnam years. Extended deployments to Iraq have left US forces tired, and limited resources at home mean disasters like Katrina cannot be responded to appropriately. The ability for terrorists to enter the US is no better or worse than pre 9/11 (illegal immigrants are clearly walking into the nation at will) and statistics have repeatedly shwn that the invasion of Iraq created MORE terrorism, rather than lowering the threat. Troops in Iraq have been woefully under-resourced, with family and friends at home holding fund raisers and bake sales to buy their loved ones armour for use in Iraq.

How do you see the curent Administration as having built a stronger National Defense?

I keep thinking the Republicans can do something to change the tax structure or tax codes.

The Bush Administration made history by introducing/maintaining tax cuts for the rich during a time of war. Despite the country now having record debt and imminent recession, they steadfastly cling to the belief that those tax cuts have somehow benefited the nation.

So far both Hillary,Obama and even Ron Paul talk about bringing the troops home, but they do not mention how are they going to stabalize the region and pertect us and the rest of the world from terroism

Right or wrong, they are responding to US public demand, who want their troops home. It is widely accepted that Iraq is nowhere near independent, and that continued deployment of US forces will be required for anywhere from ten to 50 years whilst the area is restructured and rebuilt, if stability is to be maintained.

Are you prepared to keep 120,000 US troops in Iraq for 10 years? Are you prepared to accept another 5-10 thousand dead US troops over that time? To sustain that many troops offshore, the draft may need to be instated - are you prepared to sign up and do military service to help the people of Iraq? Are you prepared to lower your standard of living and reduce luxuries in order to finance the trillions of dollars required to stabilise Iraq?


Please don't see this post as an attack, which it's not intended to be. I merely wish to point out that the traditional beliefs of US Republicans are not always maintained by the politicians who claim them.

 

[Yngbldhwk]

So let me ask you guys if the United States completely pulls our troops out of Iraq and out of the Middle East region- What will happen? Do you believe there will be a chance for more peace in the region, do you believe that no one will attack Iraq and take it over. Does the UN which is the biggest joke in the world take our place in the region or am I misunderstanding what the Dems are trying to do. Do they just want to scale back our presence and not totally leave the region. I would like to know their plans. They don't mention their plans in their debates, which bothers me. I know terroism is never going to go away, but I think it can be controlled from getting out of hand. I think if the United States leaves the region there will be bloodshed. I'll use the senario of Northern Ireland, The British know they can never pull their troops out of northern Ireland because all hell will break lose- I think our situation is quite similar. One thing is Sen. Biden's plan of subdividing the country will never work, but hey at least he had a plan so he is the one Democrat that at least mentioned a plan- so I give him some kudos for that. Another thing I don't like is that it is a trend for Democratic Presidents to initiate military cutbacks- both President Carter and President Clinton put through cutbacks which weakened our armforces- So many people bitch about Reagan and Bush spending so many dollars on the Military- they wouldn't have to if both Carter and Clinton would have left the military alone. They are other programs which they could have cut. Our National Security has always been my fear-even before I was able to vote, Carter scared the hell out of me with this issue. It will continue to be my fear, if McCain plays the fear card then fine it's my concern. So the Democrats need to be forthright up front about their plans, they need to show me that they are strong willed.

Not correct, in either case. President Carter generally gets a bum rap on issues that, ironically, he was absolutely correct on in the long run. He was perceived as being "soft" on defense due to his cancellation of Rockwell's B1A long-range bomber. We should be extremely grateful for his judgment. The B1A was a piece of crap. Even the most generous estimates at the time predicted that 60% of them would be shot down by Russian air defense systems before they even had an opportunity to release their bombs. More importantly, Carter cancelled this unpromising weapon because a far more important weapon was being worked on by Lockheed-Martin that truly deserved funding: the first stealth bombers, eventually trotted out by the air force in the early to mid 80s. Stealth has become so important to the airforce that the technology is present in almost every bomber, fighter jet, or unmanned arial vehicle that they have. It's even been extended to submarines, as a way of offering sonar invisibility.

So, while at the time his decision may have seemed unpopular and difficult to understand, hindsight shows he did the right thing, even though he knew he would be criticized by the Republicans and the press.

 

[fadeinout30]

Yes, you are probably a minority on this site. However, there are plenty of gay Republicans and Independents out there. I absolutely refuse to vote for a Democrat just because they claim to be the lesser of two evils at the moment for the gay community.

I mean come the fuck on people. It was Bill Clinton and the Democrats who pushed the Defense of Marriage Act through during his administration which says two things:

1. No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) need recognize a marriage between persons of the same sex, even if the marriage was concluded or recognized in another state.

2. The Federal Government may not recognize same-sex or polygamous marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states.

Senate passage 85 to 14
House of Rep passage 342 to 67

It was Hillary Clinton who said the other year that she was "still evolving on the gay marriage issue." WFT is that suppose to mean? Either you support the concept of equality or you don't. Or she could just be full of shit.

And let's get another fact out there...

USA Today did a survey of different groups of people from Jews, Asians, Blacks, Catholics, Protestants, etc. Guess what group came out on top against gay people the most? I almost fell out of my chair after reading it...the black community with over 70% against gays. Black people including that homophobic piece of shit Jesse Jackson overwhelmingly vote Democrat but nothing is said because they have a "D" after their name and not an "R."

And I won't go off on another rampage with the hypocritical, moral ass, religious zealots who tend to control the Republicans and their platform.

What am I saying? Bring an honest to good third party presidential candidate to the table - a social liberal when it comes to people's lives but a conservative when it comes to the size of govt and my wallet.

 

[fadeinout30]

The Bush Administration made history by introducing/maintaining tax cuts for the rich during a time of war. Despite the country now having record debt and imminent recession, they steadfastly cling to the belief that those tax cuts have somehow benefited the nation.

I personally think it is a good thing for people to keep more of their money they earn despite how much money they make. Bush's tax cuts were across the board and took millions of poor families off the IRS income tax payroll.

And yes while it is true in dollar terms that the higher income earners received more back, well that is how it works in reality. If someone making $250k a year gets a tax brake of $10K, you cannot honestly expect a person making $25K get a brake for $10K can you? Hell, do you know that 51 million individual and familes pay ZERO federal income taxes. And most of them with kids actually get a fucking refund on top of paying ZERO?

Again, while the rich received in dollar terms a higher reduction in taxes and while millions of low income tax payers were taking off the IRS income tax payroll, the tax burden under Bush shifted toward the rich. Meaning the rich are paying as a burden of the revenue, more taxes than under Clinton. This fact cannot be argued and why Democrats use dollar figures to confuse and piss off uneducated voters.

You did it quite nicely by pointing out that the country is having "record debt." For starters, the debt is coming down and about half of what the Dems were claiming it was. Second, you are using dollar amounts. The dollar amount is irrelevant for the most part. It is what relation does that dollar amount have to the national GDP. And when looked at that way, it is not the worst debt record.

A recession? Bound to happen sooner or later regardless of who is in office or not. It is simply the way our economy has worked and always will. About every 8 years or so a recession will occur. Luckily for us we had 3 mild recessions in the last 30 years.

 

[syntax]

I would look a little closer at the republicans if I were you...

It's hard to say the republicans are solid on defense, we're mired in 2 different wars,with no end in sight or any real objective...

Do you think thats good for National security?..

The country needs taxes to run,how do they plan on financing this war? Should we continue to become deeper in debt to China and other lenders?..That can't be good for National security or the economy..

If you take a closer look at the policies of the modern day republicans who lead the party, and still feel they best represent your values, and interests, and you can make peace with yourself, then by all means,vote republican..

Just be prepared to defend your convictions..In for a penny,in for a pound..

Senator Clinton voted for the war in Iraq. Do you think that's good for National Security? Senator Clinton just voted for a tax rebate plan that is going to increase the deficit (financed by the Chinese) by 200 billion dollars. In both instances she voted to INCREASE the debt.

Maybe you need to look a little closer at Senator Clinton, Kennyworth.

 

[Kulindahr]

The issue you worry about the most (terrorism) is the issue that repubs have fostered for the past 7 years, more commonly called "the fear card". Fact of the matter is that we will never "stabilize" the region (Iraq). Our very presence there is what created the instability in the first place. We invaded and occupied a religious region when we could have gone in there, got rid of Saddam and left. Occupation was as unacceptable to the middle east as it would be to millions around the world if they suddenly occupied the Vatican or Israel.

Read history. Terrorism has existed in the world for 3000 years, most of it the result of organized religion. It is not going to go away...not in any of our lifetimes. In that sense, I think that's what McCain meant when he said "we could be there for the next 100 years". If we don't draw the line somewhere, he's right. We will be.

We lost that option the moment Bremer set foot in the place.

I have no idea what McCain is talking about with that 100 year nonsense -- unless he plans on taking a dozen years to get Iraq settled down, and then we invade Iran, spend twenty years getting it settled, then invade Jordan... then Syria...

 

[syntax]

We lost that option the moment Bremer set foot in the place.

I have no idea what McCain is talking about with that 100 year nonsense -- unless he plans on taking a dozen years to get Iraq settled down, and then we invade Iran, spend twenty years getting it settled, then invade Jordan... then Syria...

Of course that is exactly what he is talking about: continuing occupation of Iraq and the invasion and occupation of Iran and Syria in the 21st century. Not sure why you include Jordan?

 

[Kulindahr]

two questions: how old are you, and if you are between 18-46 when were your dates of military service?

Are you trying to be Alfie?
That ploy was immature and foolish when he did it; it doesn't get any better when you do.

and

how did that fiscal management work from 2001-2007 with the republicans running the house and senate and having the presidency? I presume after those six years, the war is over and the financial afffairs of the nation are all in order since they had total control

Really?

Please give us a link to show where the Republicans had 67 or more seats in the Senate and 290 or more in the House of Representatives.

 

[syntax]

I personally think it is a good thing for people to keep more of their money they earn despite how much money they make. Bush's tax cuts were across the board and took millions of poor families off the IRS income tax payroll.

And yes while it is true in dollar terms that the higher income earners received more back, well that is how it works in reality. If someone making $250k a year gets a tax brake of $10K, you cannot honestly expect a person making $25K get a brake for $10K can you? Hell, do you know that 51 million individual and familes pay ZERO federal income taxes. And most of them with kids actually get a fucking refund on top of paying ZERO?

Again, while the rich received in dollar terms a higher reduction in taxes and while millions of low income tax payers were taking off the IRS income tax payroll, the tax burden under Bush shifted toward the rich. Meaning the rich are paying as a burden of the revenue, more taxes than under Clinton. This fact cannot be argued and why Democrats use dollar figures to confuse and piss off uneducated voters.

You did it quite nicely by pointing out that the country is having "record debt." For starters, the debt is coming down and about half of what the Dems were claiming it was. Second, you are using dollar amounts. The dollar amount is irrelevant for the most part. It is what relation does that dollar amount have to the national GDP. And when looked at that way, it is not the worst debt record.

A recession? Bound to happen sooner or later regardless of who is in office or not. It is simply the way our economy has worked and always will. About every 8 years or so a recession will occur. Luckily for us we had 3 mild recessions in the last 30 years.

The DEBT of the US stands at 9 trillion dollars. The projected DEFICIT for 2008 is around 400 billion dollars. Figure out the difference "fadeinout30" and then come back and talk with us.

 

[Kulindahr]

Of course that is exactly what he is talking about: continuing occupation of Iraq and the invasion and occupation of Iran and Syria in the 21st century. Not sure why you include Jordan?

We wouldn't want them to feel left out, would we?

Besides, McCain's successor could then offer the Palestinian Arabs a peace plan: resettle in Jordan and we'll give you $25k US, $50 per couple plus $5k per child.

 

[syntax]

We wouldn't want them to feel left out, would we?

Besides, McCain's successor could then offer the Palestinian Arabs a peace plan: resettle in Jordan and we'll give you $25k US, $50 per couple plus $5k per child.

OK, I like a joke and I LOVE sarcasm. But seriously, the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan has been a fairly reliable ally of the United States for the past 80 years. I don't think it is on the neo-con hitlist.

BTW, close to 2 million Palestinian refugees from the Arab-Israeli wars of 1948 and 1967 (and others) already live in Jordan.

McCain is a warmonger and mentally unstable. He is also the provisional Republican nominee for President. That is not nonsense.

 

[andysayshi]

I personally think it is a good thing for people to keep more of their money they earn despite how much money they make. Bush's tax cuts were across the board and took millions of poor families off the IRS income tax payroll.

And yes while it is true in dollar terms that the higher income earners received more back, well that is how it works in reality. If someone making $250k a year gets a tax brake of $10K, you cannot honestly expect a person making $25K get a brake for $10K can you? Hell, do you know that 51 million individual and familes pay ZERO federal income taxes. And most of them with kids actually get a fucking refund on top of paying ZERO?

When you put it that way, it sounds kinda fine. Unfortunately, that's not the reality. From the NY Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/08/washington/08tax.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Families in the middle fifth of annual earnings, who had average incomes of $56,200 in 2004, saw their average effective tax rate edge down to 2.9 percent in 2004 from 5 percent in 2000. That translated to an average tax cut of $1,180 per household, but the tax rate actually increased slightly from 2003.
Tax cuts were much deeper, and affected far more money, for families in the highest income categories. Households in the top 1 percent of earnings, which had an average income of $1.25 million, saw their effective individual tax rates drop to 19.6 percent in 2004 from 24.2 percent in 2000. The rate cut was twice as deep as for middle-income families, and it translated to an average tax cut of almost $58,000.

So middle income families save 2 percent, while people who earn a million a year get 5%! Where's the equity in that?

Add to that the reduction of estate taxes for inherited wealth, which obviously benefits the rich rather than middle and lower income families.

Poverty-level income rates are virtually unaffected by Bush's tax cuts, so I don't see their relevance to this discussion.

Mr. Bush and his Republican allies in Congress want to permanently extend that tax cut and almost all of the others that Congress passed in his first term. The cost of doing that would be more than $1 trillion over the next decade, a cost that would hit the Treasury at the same time that the spending on old-age benefits for retiring baby boomers begins to soar.

Again, while the rich received in dollar terms a higher reduction in taxes and while millions of low income tax payers were taking off the IRS income tax payroll, the tax burden under Bush shifted toward the rich. Meaning the rich are paying as a burden of the revenue, more taxes than under Clinton. This fact cannot be argued and why Democrats use dollar figures to confuse and piss off uneducated voters.

No, the inverse of your argument is correct. The DOLLAR AMOUNT of tax paid by high income households has increased (due to inflation etc), but the PERCENTAGE of tax has reduced after the tax cuts. However you look at the figures, the tax cuts will cost a trillion dollars over 10 years.

You did it quite nicely by pointing out that the country is having "record debt." For starters, the debt is coming down and about half of what the Dems were claiming it was. Second, you are using dollar amounts. The dollar amount is irrelevant for the most part. It is what relation does that dollar amount have to the national GDP. And when looked at that way, it is not the worst debt record.

No, the DEFICIT is coming down, the National Debt is higher than it's ever been, and increasing. I did not mention a singe dollar amount in my first post. With economic recession an almost definite, a $275 million-per-day war with no clear finish, how can one trillion dollars in reduced tax revenue be seen as responsible fiscal policy? And why is "the worst debt record" a point of comparison? Who cares what's worst, shouldn't the bar be high, not low?

A recession? Bound to happen sooner or later regardless of who is in office or not. It is simply the way our economy has worked and always will. About every 8 years or so a recession will occur. Luckily for us we had 3 mild recessions in the last 30 years.

You're right. But that only makes the need for fiscal responsibility more important.