Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

United States Accused Of Desablizing Australia

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 6
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 template Next
  • #16
    The US accused of destablizing some political party in Australia? Huh? The US has better things to do then mess with a country it doesn't even know exists. Just kidding.... who cares?

    Originally posted by *End Is Forever*
    Don't even think about comparing the Tories with the GOP scum...
    Oh be quiet... I happen to like the GOP....

    No, of course not. We all know the Tories are the rascist ones, while the GOP is the homophobic one
    I consider myself aligned with the GOP and I am not homophobic.
    For there is [another] kind of violence, slower but just as deadly, destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions -- indifference, inaction, and decay. This is the violence that afflicts the poor, that poisons relations between men because their skin has different colors. - Bobby Kennedy (Mindless Menance of Violence)

    Comment

    • #17
      Originally posted by *End Is Forever*
      Don't even think about comparing the Tories with the GOP scum...
      This from a party that gave the world Margaret Thatcher.
      I make no bones about my moral support for [terrorist] organizations. - chegitz guevara
      For those who aspire to live in a high cost, high tax, big government place, our nation and the world offers plenty of options. Vermont, Canada and Venezuela all offer you the opportunity to live in the socialist, big government paradise you long for. –Senator Rubio

      Comment

      • #18
        Originally posted by orange
        GOP - Grand Ol'(d) Party
        Which is funny because they aren't the old party. They are newer than the Democrats. Typical politcal propaganda.

        Comment

        • #19
          Originally posted by Ethelred


          Which is funny because they aren't the old party. They are newer than the Democrats. Typical politcal propaganda.
          Typical political troll post.
          For there is [another] kind of violence, slower but just as deadly, destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions -- indifference, inaction, and decay. This is the violence that afflicts the poor, that poisons relations between men because their skin has different colors. - Bobby Kennedy (Mindless Menance of Violence)

          Comment

          • #20
            Nonsense Fez. It was just the truth. The Replicans ARE younger than the Democrats. Even when I was Republican I thought it was a bit much to call them the GOP when they clearly were the younger party.

            Comment

            • #21
              Re: Australian Politics

              Originally posted by CICSMaster (Just what in the heck does GOP stand for anyway?).
              Get your Own Party.

              And leave my alone..

              Originally posted by Ethelred
              Which is funny because they aren't the old party. They are newer than the Democrats. Typical politcal propaganda.
              They are newer but when they established their party they tried everything they could to seem old and reliable. Even the term "Republican" was chosen because of its favorable image in the minds of Americans at that time of Thomas Jefferson's "Democratic Republicans" which ironically was the forefather of the modern Democratic party.
              Last edited by GhengisFarbâ„¢; July 26, 2002, 23:03.

              Comment

              • #22
                As a party it did not exist before 1834, but its nucleus was formed in 1824 when the adherents of John Quincy Adams and Henry Clay joined forces against Andrew Jackson.
                The Republican party has been a major political force in the United States since it first appeared on the presidential ballot in 1856. Following the 1854 Kansas-Nebraska Act, the Whig party disintegrated, and mass meetings in the upper midwestern states led to the formation of a new party opposed to the spread of slavery into the western territories.

                After the war, the Republicans continued the Whig tradition of promoting industrial development through high tariffs, while their popular base lay among the freedmen and the white, Protestant population of the northern states (the party began to be referred to as the "Grand Old Party," or GOP during this period).
                This group of Anti-Federalists, who called themselves Republicans or Democratic Republicans (the name was not fixed as Democratic until 1828.
                The Republican party has been around since 1856, the Whig party before it since 1834(or 1824, depending on your POV) and the Democrat party since 1828.

                Just the historical facts. Now, I believe "Grand Ol' Party" is like saying you are having a "grand ol' time".

                Comment

                • #23
                  Originally posted by Ethelred
                  Nonsense Fez. It was just the truth. The Replicans ARE younger than the Democrats. Even when I was Republican I thought it was a bit much to call them the GOP when they clearly were the younger party.
                  And who the hell cares? Besides the democrats are a lost cause.
                  For there is [another] kind of violence, slower but just as deadly, destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions -- indifference, inaction, and decay. This is the violence that afflicts the poor, that poisons relations between men because their skin has different colors. - Bobby Kennedy (Mindless Menance of Violence)

                  Comment

                  • #24
                    Besides the democrats are a lost cause.
                    That is what the Republicans thought before Clinton. His victory showed how wrong they were. That is the real reason they hated him so much. They had planned to get controll of the Supreme Court and do some serious damage to human rights in this country. That is why I can't stand them anymore. They are pro states rights in opposition to human rights.

                    What happened to their claims of less government? Instead they want to intrude on peoples private lives. They are quite willing to let Robber Barons alone of course. When they said they wanted the goverment to be less restrictive they really meant.

                    Get the Government out of the boardrooms and into the bedrooms.

                    Well they haven't succeeded in the latter because they didn't get the Supreme Court they wanted but they sure did succeed in the former and now companies are going down from the lack of regulation that previously protected us from thieves in high places. Just like when the Savings and Loan went down when they were deregulated under Reagan and with George Bush in charge of the deregation. Even one of his sons cost the US taxpayers over one billion with the S&L he mismanaged into bankrupcy. If that had come out before the election George Bush would not have been President after Reagan.

                    Comment

                    • #25
                      More political trolling I wouldn't even want to bother responding to...
                      For there is [another] kind of violence, slower but just as deadly, destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions -- indifference, inaction, and decay. This is the violence that afflicts the poor, that poisons relations between men because their skin has different colors. - Bobby Kennedy (Mindless Menance of Violence)

                      Comment

                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Ethelred


                        That is what the Republicans thought before Clinton. His victory showed how wrong they were. That is the real reason they hated him so much. They had planned to get controll of the Supreme Court and do some serious damage to human rights in this country. That is why I can't stand them anymore. They are pro states rights in opposition to human rights.
                        Sorry, I was opposed to Clinton mainly because he was anti-military, wanted bigger government, and later because of the disgrace he brought to the Presidency. And, of course, there were all those secrets he gave to China. There's a word for that, too: treason.

                        What happened to their claims of less government? Instead they want to intrude on peoples private lives. They are quite willing to let Robber Barons alone of course. When they said they wanted the goverment to be less restrictive they really meant.
                        If, by intruding on people's private lives, you are referring to recent security measures, then the Republicans are not alone, and I oppose anything beyond improved border patrols. I wish America would drop this post 9/11 frenzy.

                        Comment

                        • #27
                          Fez

                          More political trolling I wouldn't even want to bother responding to...

                          If you can't offer a counter position don't make such lame comments. It damages your creditability.
                          The ways of Man are passing strange, he buys his freedom and he counts his change.
                          Then he lets the wind his days arrange and he calls the tide his master.

                          Comment

                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Verto
                            Sorry, I was opposed to Clinton mainly because he was anti-military, wanted bigger government, and later because of the disgrace he brought to the Presidency. And, of course, there were all those secrets he gave to China. There's a word for that, too: treason.
                            He wasn't anti-military. He just wanted to cut its budget. Just as Bush did. Reagan had jacked up the military budget to level that could not be sustained.

                            He didn't make bigger government wether he wanted it or not. However Reagan DID make a bigger government even though he said it was too big to start with.

                            The Republicans went searching for dirt. Found some of their own as well by accident. Do let me know when the Clinton Administration has as many convictions as the Reagan adminstration did. Right now its 29 for Reagan and one for Clinton. Reagans admin did a lot that was ilegal.

                            As for treason, thats an assumption. There is no reason to think Clinton gave military secrets to the Chinese intentionaly. Except of course the usual Republican desire to smear him. I do think he screwed up there but I don't see treason in it. Might as well accuse Reagan of treason based on that 2 million dollar gift the Japanese gave him after he got out of office apparently for not insisting that the Japanes open their markets as we were doing. That hurt us a lot.

                            If, by intruding on people's private lives, you are referring to recent security measures, then the Republicans are not alone, and I oppose anything beyond improved border patrols. I wish America would drop this post 9/11 frenzy.
                            I was not, although some of those have looked un-Constitutional as well. I was thinking about Ed Meese's attempt to censor, which involved his Meese commision just plain lying about the resuts of the Meese study and of course the desire to stop abortions without bothering with a constitional amendment since the Republican knew they could not get one.

                            Comment

                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Promethus
                              If you can't offer a counter position don't make such lame comments. It damages your creditability.
                              Counter what position? And it is credibility.
                              For there is [another] kind of violence, slower but just as deadly, destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions -- indifference, inaction, and decay. This is the violence that afflicts the poor, that poisons relations between men because their skin has different colors. - Bobby Kennedy (Mindless Menance of Violence)

                              Comment

                              • #30
                                Why, my position of course. Just pretending its invalid does not make it so.

                                You have no credibility on this. Not yet anyway since you have only shown an unwillingness to discuss it rather than produce anything that remotely resembled a coherent arguement.

                                Comment

                                Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 template Next
                                Working...
                                X