A question for Imran Siddiqui

[Pekka]

"I'm a Republican because I believe that the private sector is usually (but not always) superior to govenment spending."

So you must support pro life as well.

" I believe that free trade and capitalism are good things"

Yeah for who? YOU? Or the guy in China sowing your Nike shirts so you can buy them cheaper, err wait no, so the Nike makes more profit, so they can get more government breaks, because they'r enot making enough profits in fact, and tax breaks, so they can invest aka give better bonus options for the managment who are fat white americans who look more evil than Cheney themselves, so they can buy more guns and lobby the what ever it is that needs to be lobbied. Is that what you want? good for who I ASK YOU!=? Good for the rich!

" and I consider corporations to be forces for good, not evil."

So now corporations are an entity with black and white status, good or evil, or in your case, all are good? Is tobacco company good? They kill people legally! And make profit doing so. How is this good?

" All he wants to do is spend, spend, spend, spend and in doing so he doesn't consider how he can use the market and government to achieve his aims rather than simply throwing government money at the problem."

Oh so you're the economy professor now? Who knows better, administration or you? That's right. You don't know what you're talking about. The economy is on the fastest rise in many years right now.

Yes, wolf in sheeps clothing.

You're not a real republican. Party traitor!

Just trolling . I myself hate party politics anyway. It's all about the party these days, not the people. Power tripping bastards.

[Ben Kenobi]

I challenge Happy Sunshine's claim to be a Republican, for obviously he is a wolf in sheep's clothing.

What is your position on social issues like abortion and gay marriage?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Just trolling

I know .

[loinburger]

Originally posted by MalevolentLight
Also I have always wondered how it is possible to be fiscally conservative and socially liberal when the two are constantly in conflict with each other. You are for less taxes and less spending, yet you are for social programs?

I wasn't aware that civil liberties were equivalent to "social programs" in the overly simplistic minds of uber-conservatives. I'd always thought that freedom was, well, free, but apparently I was wrong???

[Agathon]

Imran is a liberal, in the old US tradition of liberalism (which is different from the current sense of the term). Of course many Americans call themselves "conservatives" because they think it conveys the impression of rationality and sound thinking (it doesn't).

[Kropotkin]

Damn it Imran, why did you respond? I was getting a "Waiting for Godot"-wibe over it all!

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Imran is left of a pacifist?

News to me.

Pacifist and religious fundie.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by MalevolentLight
Imran having Reagan's image as an avatar is an insult to the Reagan.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by MalevolentLight
Being fiscally conservative and socially liberal is called being a libertarian.

And there are a lot of libertarians (no big L) in the Republican party

[MalevolentLight]

I don't think you agree 80% of the time number 1. Number 2 you would vote for the most liberal man in the senate? A guy who is against corporations and against the private sector? And you talk about diplomacy, but Bush's father is part of the reason we're in this mess. Were it not for his "diplomacy" saddam would have been gone in '90. So lets rephrase this topic then. Why would you vote for kerry over bush if you are supposedly a conservative? It's no big secret that Kerry is even left of Ted Kennedy. He's even left of Hillary Clinton and you are hoping he will curb spending? You must be in denial or something.

[SlowwHand]

" but Bush's father is part of the reason we're in this mess. Were it not for his "diplomacy" saddam would have been gone in '90."

****merunning. I have to agree.

[Imran Siddiqui]

#1, it's a very, very sad indictment on the current Republican Party where such a liberal Senator will spend LESS than the President. "Compassionate Conservatism" just means being a religious wacko and spending up the ass. Clinton never even asked for this much spending from his Congress. Kerry with a Republican Congress leads to gridlock, which is ok by me.

Or are you one of those people who doesn't realize that Congress is more important in the finances than the President.

#2, Bush's father is NOT part of the reason we are in this mess. Our goal in 1991 was to drive Iraq from Kuwait. There was no mandate to go in and take out Saddam (why would there be from simply invading a country). Our forces were not set up to do an invation of Iraq, we didn't have the supplies necessary to go to Baghdad. And there would be no domestic support for a exercise in nation building after taking down Saddam.

Bush, Sr., did what he had to do and did it well. He kicked Saddam out of Kuwait and then caged him in.

#3, I'll vote for Kerry over Bush, because its a choice between two liberals. I'd rather take the more intelligent one.

[OzzyKP]

Also I have always wondered how it is possible to be fiscally conservative and socially liberal when the two are constantly in conflict with each other. You are for less taxes and less spending, yet you are for social programs?

haha, you should stick to Civ2, you obviously don't know enough about politics to avoid stepping over yourself. Entitlement programs are in the fiscal column (ya know, cause they cost money). Being a "social liberal" means you support personal freedom involving things like civil liberties, abortion, drugs, censorship etc.

Go here to get a sense of the difference: http://www.self-gov.org/quiz.html

[MalevolentLight]

#1, it's a very, very sad indictment on the current Republican Party where such a liberal Senator will spend LESS than the President. "Compassionate Conservatism" just means being a religious wacko and spending up the ass. Clinton never even asked for this much spending from his Congress. Kerry with a Republican Congress leads to gridlock, which is ok by me.

We are in a state of war number 1. Number 2 you obviously haven't read about kerry's plans for his spending. You really think that little 2% hike on the supposed "rich" is going to pay for everything he has planned?

#2, Bush's father is NOT part of the reason we are in this mess. Our goal in 1991 was to drive Iraq from Kuwait. There was no mandate to go in and take out Saddam (why would there be from simply invading a country). Our forces were not set up to do an invation of Iraq, we didn't have the supplies necessary to go to Baghdad. And there would be no domestic support for a exercise in nation building after taking down Saddam.

Actually the troops were ordered by Bush to stop at Baghdad. Schwarzkopf was fully prepared to go in and take out Saddam. They didn't go in because of pressure from middle eastern "allies" and they didn't want to disrupt the balance of power by deposing saddam. Also we had a far larger coalition in that war, but I am guessing countries like France would object to actually removing Saddam.

haha, you should stick to Civ2, you obviously don't know enough about politics to avoid stepping over yourself. Entitlement programs are in the fiscal column (ya know, cause they cost money). Being a "social liberal" means you support personal freedom involving things like civil liberties, abortion, drugs, censorship etc.

Being socially liberal also entails supporting things like illegal immigration and YES entitlement programs. So yes they do conflict with each other.

[mrmitchell]

Bush, because its a choice between two liberals.

I take offense to that