Welcome to PatsFans.com

Strategy for Maintaining GOP Control

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by All_Around_Brown, Aug 31, 2006.

  1. All_Around_Brown

    All_Around_Brown Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2005
    Messages:
    3,098
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    The scoop is here

    Consider yourself informed. It is how the GOP expects to maintain its majority. One word: FEAR



  2. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,863
    Likes Received:
    107
    Ratings:
    +238 / 8 / -13

    Looking at the membership committee of this group it looks like a bi partisan who who of foreign policy expertise.

    Hardly frenetic fear mongers.
  3. IcyPatriot

    IcyPatriot ------------- PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    39,119
    Likes Received:
    475
    Ratings:
    +1,049 / 9 / -19

    #87 Jersey

    If nothing else...and I have said this before...I hope the Bush Presidency has taught America to vote for the best candidates in the primaries. It is the failure of Americans to pay attention to the primaries that leads to contests such as Bush vs Kerry.

    That election was honed down to 1 issue and that will always be a disaster. There is much debate everywhere concerning the WOT but even many republicans will admit that Bush has been a domestic disaster. Not only has he been a disaster but he had the House & Senate at his availability and never took advantage of it for the good of the country.

    But it's the primaries where we mess up all the time. That leads to groups like this one that AAB found. If you can run and win on a singular issue then you have voters hoodwinked....it should never be like that...ever.

    The best candidates get pushed aside early on. So, lets say Obama entered the race and ran on being tough for defense. Not that he would...just an example. So, a multi talented guy like Obama figures to get name recognition I will counter the COPD....then they label him a 1 issue candidate and he gets screwed anyways.

    Now why is that? Because voters have a 1 or 2 issue mindset that the candidates exploit. If all the voters crossed party lines and at the very least voted based on 3 issues we would be better off. Not as good as 5 or 7 issues but it would negate this COPD group and bring about good debate.

    Without looking...can anyone here name 5 issues that Bush had and 5 issues that Kerry had? Probably not...and if not, it's why COPD can be effective. IMO OF COURSE.
  4. gomezcat

    gomezcat It's SIR Moderator to you Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    3,551
    Likes Received:
    3
    Ratings:
    +3 / 0 / -0

    I agree with you 100%. It is up to people to get off their arses, research their candidates and make sure the best one gets elected.
  5. Pujo

    Pujo Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    I agree on the primaries issue. If the 2000 race had been McCain v Bill Bradley, we would have been way better off regardless of which one of them won.
  6. All_Around_Brown

    All_Around_Brown Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2005
    Messages:
    3,098
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    I think you may be missing the bigger meaning of this group.

    Put it this way. Can you name any other nation states in the last 100 years that put fear into its population to ascend to and maintain power?

    Think about that.

    It just so happens that the collapse of the USSR indicated a potential end to our vastly bloated defense budgets. Is it possible, that to prevent that from happening, a group foisted a new enemy upon us?

    They wouldn't do something like that would they? I mean, use fear mongering to maintain power and funnel vast sums of our treasury into the military industrial complex just as our 50 year old foe was fading into the background?
  7. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,863
    Likes Received:
    107
    Ratings:
    +238 / 8 / -13

    Most countries have think tanks of people who attempt to analyize problems facing the nation.

    These folks didn't put Kim Jong Il or the Mullahs in Iran or spawn ISlamist philosophy.

    You comments almost make it sound like these folks made it all up?
  8. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    41,788
    Likes Received:
    180
    Ratings:
    +364 / 11 / -27

    One of the strategies for re-election is already being resounded across the land by GWB, Cheney and Rumsfield...talking about the fascists and what will happen if we do not continue the endless war in Iraq... I suspect that this rhetoric will intensify into a crescendo, by November when we will all hear Dems soft on terrorism... Reps good for national security.... so much so it will have an effect on the election.
  9. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,863
    Likes Received:
    107
    Ratings:
    +238 / 8 / -13

    Well there are 2 different views on the GWOT, that would seem to be reasonable to present both views and let the voters decide.
  10. Blue Collar

    Blue Collar Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2006
    Messages:
    1,521
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    wHEN ARE YOU GOING TO LAY OUT YOUR THOUGHTS OR STRATEGIES IN THE 2 THREADS? CURIOUS it will be enlightening for us to know what a right of center poster who is pro bush and pro war actually thinks is the correct plan, with their words,not the RNC's talking point's?
  11. PatsFanInMaine

    PatsFanInMaine Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2004
    Messages:
    651
    Likes Received:
    3
    Ratings:
    +3 / 0 / -0

    Often in a midterm election the real campaigning doesn't start till after Labor Day. Historically the ruling party looses ground. I beleive as a Republican that we have a decent chance at maintining the majority. Many of these races are going to tighten up. The one thing we do better than Democrats is getting the base out to vote. Our nation's survival is riding on keeping Republican control. I will be doing my part for my nation.
  12. All_Around_Brown

    All_Around_Brown Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2005
    Messages:
    3,098
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    I heard about it via Thom Hartmann. It is the rhetoric that these types gravitate to, but when you ask them to break down the current events with actual facts, they get all twisted in their logic.

    Bushs interview with Brian Williams showed that clearly. He reflexively went to the 911-Iraq conflation and when called on it, nearly gagged like he was choking on a pretzel.

    In this case, you have a predetermined political strategy to generate fear amongst the populace, to get sheeple to gravitate to the GOP who has had this image of being stronger on defense- and its the perpetuation of this fear that constitutes the justification for this failed Iraq policy and possibly for going to war with Iran next.

    It was Rumsfeld that balked at Nixons attempts at detente if I understand this all correctly. And to this day, I suspect, this snake and Cheney have been at it while lining their pockets as chief war profiteers while american men and women get killed in their war of choice.

    But, if people start getting squeamish about the slaughter in Iraq, they'll simply pull out the old Iraq-911 conflation argument again until their sheeple fall back in line.

    Its all very clear what their strategy is. Remember that Cheney practically said, in no uncertain terms, that if you don't vote for them in 04, we will most likely be attacked again.

    There are fascists afoot, but they are not Muslims. Those are theocrat crazies, these are sick greedy cowardly chickenhawks.
  13. All_Around_Brown

    All_Around_Brown Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2005
    Messages:
    3,098
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    Good luck with that. Glad you aren't swayed into thinking indepoendantly or anything crazy like that. Keep them organ grinders turning, I say.

    Guess you got the memo...vote for us or die.
  14. PatsFanInMaine

    PatsFanInMaine Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2004
    Messages:
    651
    Likes Received:
    3
    Ratings:
    +3 / 0 / -0

    A couple examples of how Democrats up for re-election this year have impeded the WOT. Their unwillingness to combat terrorism is why I believe they present a danger to our nation.

    http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll357.xml

    Democrats voted against this resolution 174-17 despite the fact that it calls for the programs to be conducted consistent with federal law and with appropriate Congressional oversight. Democrats do not want to fight the WOT and see nothing wrong the leaking of programs that do fight the WOT.

    http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:HZ00602:
    Democrats voted against this Amendment 115-81. I can only gather that the majority of Democrats feel that the detention and interrogation of terrorists is not fundamental to winning the WOT.
    Last edited: Aug 31, 2006
  15. Blue Collar

    Blue Collar Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2006
    Messages:
    1,521
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    UBOAT? NO NOT ANOTHER UBOAT THREAD:( WE CANT HANDLE UBOAT THREADS:mad: :bricks:
  16. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,863
    Likes Received:
    107
    Ratings:
    +238 / 8 / -13

    The democrats view terrorism as criminal acts and focus on the individuals they feel are responsible for the act. They dems want any use of US power to defend this country to be blessed by the United Nations and won't persue any activities not agreed upon by the international community. The dem swant captured terrorist to be treated as US criminal defendants rahter than enemy combatants or as spies and sabateours (the Geneva convention BTW differentiates between uniformed and non uniformed combatants and the treatment of each is very different). The dems don't want to update the FISA regualtions to account for changes in communicatins technology since the 1970's. The dems want to institute massive funding of our 'first responders' to deal with the aftermath of terrorist attacks. dems are worried about understanding 'why they hate us', rather than just taking them at their word.


    I view the GWOT as a WAR not a set of criminal acts. The WAR is being waged by a number on non govermental terrorist organizations that are loosly coupled, they are supported by a number of goverments who support them and use the terrorist orgs as proxies to avoid direct confrontation with US military forces. The ultimate goal of the Islamist is to establish a Wordwide Caliphate. They are practicing asymmetrical warfare.


    Here is an article that discuss goals: http://www.danielpipes.org/article/2798

    asymmetric warfare:http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/globalguerrillas/2004/05/4gw_fourth_gene.html

    If you are at war you fight to win, proportional response is not going to win. The goal is to destroy the terrorist organizations, the nation states that support them. We should use whatever intel and survallence process that are available to us internationally to track their comms and finances. We should revise the FISA laws to account for changes in technology (for example real tome wire taps of disposiable phone, with review by a court after the fact if US nationals are involved).

    We should confront directly if necessary or destabilize if possible the goverments that support them. The goverments that pose the most immeadiate threats are Iran and Syria (not that the Taliban and Saddam no longer run their countries. I also believe that the Saudi's need to be coerced into cutting funding of madrasas and Mosques worldwide that promote Whabbism and the goals os the Islamist. In the case of Iran there is a lot of unrest among the population I would try to avoid if possible direct congrontation if possible, that just allows the regieme to focus attention towards the US and away from the disconent of the Iranian people. I would assist groups looking to overthrow the goverment whenever possible. If Iran is taken care of I would look for regieme change in Damascus.
  17. PatsFanInMaine

    PatsFanInMaine Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2004
    Messages:
    651
    Likes Received:
    3
    Ratings:
    +3 / 0 / -0

    NEM, I am talking about House Bill 895. You have confused that with Senate Bill 895. Two entirely different pieces of legislation.
  18. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,863
    Likes Received:
    107
    Ratings:
    +238 / 8 / -13


    You shouldn't burden a great mind like NEM's with silly details. :)
  19. All_Around_Brown

    All_Around_Brown Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2005
    Messages:
    3,098
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    Alot of us are more interested in how the Bush administration and Republican Congress plans on winning the war on terror while they themselves are responsible for fanning the flames of Islamic hatred throughout the Middle East and at the same time busy propping up state sponsors of terrorism (Maliki apparently will not condemn Hezbollah or Irans nuke program).

    Of course, I'm not an entrenched Washington politico like you, so what do I know?
  20. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,863
    Likes Received:
    107
    Ratings:
    +238 / 8 / -13


    Blaming Bush for getting the Islamist mad at us is like blaming Churchill for getting Hitler pi**ed at Jews.

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>