Are Republicans full of shit? - GoFuckYourself.com

JeremySF · 02-24-2003, 05:03 PM

I'm a libertarian, who more often than not votes republican. As I see it, Democrats want impose on your economic liberties, while it seems that many republicans want to impose on your civil liberties (even though they run on a platform that is opposed to big government and supports states' rights).

So what the hell happens to republicans once they get elected?? In 1999, Bush said he supported states' rights on medical marijuana. Moreover, who would have thought they could push through the patriot act (although with a name like the Patriot Act, you could probably legalize crack). Bush appoints an arch enemy of civil rights, John Asscraft, as attorney general.

So what's the deal? Republicans talk the talk, but are they afraid to walk the walk? In short, are they full of shit??

October 20, 1999
The Dallas Morning News

Bush backs states' rights on marijuana

He opposes medical use but favors local control

By Susan Feeney

WASHINGTON - Gov. George Bush said he backs a state's right to decide whether to allow medical use of marijuana, a position that puts him sharply at odds with Republicans on Capitol Hill. "I believe each state can choose that decision as they so choose," the governor said recently in Seattle in response to a reporter's question.

Chuck Thomas, spokesman for the Marijuana Policy Project, a medical marijuana lobbying group, praised Mr. Bush as "courageous" and "consistent on states' rights. I would hope he would be an example for Republicans in Congress."

Aides said Mr. Bush does not support legalizing marijuana for medical use. But his position supporting state self-determination opens the door to medical marijuana use in some places. President Clinton and most Republican lawmakers, by contrast, oppose all state medical marijuana legalization laws, saying they could lead to abuse.

But Mr. Clinton - in a move philosophically in tune with Mr. Bush - has said Republicans in Congress went too far in seeking to block the District of Columbia's medical marijuana ballot initiative, which won 69 percent support last year.

The president recently vetoed the district's $4.7 billion budget approved by Congress, in part because of a provision to overturn the medical marijuana law.

"For us, that's an issue of local control," of not "micromanaging local government," said White House spokesman Jake Siewert. The veto was not about the merits of the issue, he said.

Among the Republicans leading the charge against the district's law are GOP House leaders and Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, a Bush supporter and chairwoman of the District of Columbia Appropriations Subcommittee.

The district should not be "a haven for marijuana use, even for medicinal purposes," Ms. Hutchison said on the Senate floor. "I don't think we should take an illegal drug and allow it to be legalized in our capital city."

Alaska, Arizona, California, Nevada, Oregon and Washington have approved medical marijuana laws, giving the issue prominence in key Western states.

Mr. Bush, campaigning for president in Seattle on Saturday, told reporters he felt certain that such a move was "not going to happen in Texas." The state has no direct referendums or voter initiatives.

Although addressing the states' rights issue, Mr. Bush didn't comment directly on the District of Columbia issue. His position of opposing the medical marijuana but saying states should decide is unique among presidential contenders, Mr. Thomas said.

Staff writer Wayne Slater in Austin contributed to this report.

Gutterboy · 02-24-2003, 05:09 PM

The recent DEA raids on Medical Marijuana Clinics across the state of California tell me all I need to know about this subject.

MaxDent · 02-24-2003, 05:45 PM

Jeremy,

It is an issue of keeping the Federal Gvt out of something that can be left up to local/state govt's to deal with.

Finished mov'n out to Tres Is. Give me a call and let's hang out this week.

PornoDoggy · 02-24-2003, 05:49 PM

I'm a Democrat, and I don't think professional Republicans are any more or any less full of shit than professional Democrats.

I just don't like the bobble-heads on either side. The sort of s.o.b. who can talk today about "approving the President's right (sic) to appoint judges" who was taling about "the importance of Congress's role in the judical selection process" three years ago, and do it with a straight face, for example.

JeremySF · 02-24-2003, 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MaxDent
Jeremy,

It is an issue of keeping the Federal Gvt out of something that can be left up to local/state govt's to deal with.

Finished mov'n out to Tres Is. Give me a call and let's hang out this week.

My point exactly. The Federal Gvt should keeps it head out of issues that local/state govt's are more appropriate to deal with.

Quote:

Originally posted by MaxDent
I'm a Democrat, and I don't think professional Republicans are any more or any less full of shit than professional Democrats.

I just don't like the bobble-heads on either side. The sort of s.o.b. who can talk today about "approving the President's right (sic) to appoint judges" who was taling about "the importance of Congress's role in the judical selection process" three years ago, and do it with a straight face, for example.

I agree. That Democrats are full of shit is a given. It bothers me more though when Republicans are full of shit, because as an individual that supports less governement (like the Republicans profess to) I shouldn't have to be a libertarian. It's kind of like, I care more about what my kids do than what your kids do.

Max, I'll give you a call later this week. BTW....did you go to that show at the Fillmore on Saturday? What was the name of the band? Some stinky hippy band, right? Toad, or something?

Interlude · 02-24-2003, 06:11 PM

All politicians are full of shit.

cluck · 02-24-2003, 06:33 PM

They all suck. Socialist anarchist over here. Vote green if you want some common sense.

Cyber3 · 02-24-2003, 06:34 PM

Quote:

All politicians are full of shit.

That sums it up

jimmyf · 02-24-2003, 06:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Interlude
All politicians are full of shit.

I wouldn't go that far.
I'd say about 80% are though.

Forgot, Clinton is OK, just ask 12clicks.

JeremySF · 02-24-2003, 06:57 PM

Name 5 that aren't full of shit. I can think of one: John McCain.
:-)

Quote:

Originally posted by jimmyf
I wouldn't go that far.
I'd say about 80% are though.

Forgot, Clinton is OK, just ask 12clicks.

LiveDose · 02-24-2003, 06:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by jimmyf
I wouldn't go that far.
I'd say about 80% are though.

Forgot, Clinton is OK, just ask 12clicks.

The 20% that you say are not, get corrupted in short time. They are all full of shit and politics gets more and more disgusting everyday.

The system is out of control globally.

Rex · 02-24-2003, 06:59 PM

Yes they are.

Centurion · 02-24-2003, 08:13 PM

Yep..the Republicans ARE full of shit!
That's why not only are their eyes brown, but so are their nuts!
But then, that's the only way they could get minorities into the party!

PornoDoggy · 02-24-2003, 08:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by JeremySF

I agree. That Democrats are full of shit is a given. It bothers me more though when Republicans are full of shit, because as an individual that supports less governement (like the Republicans profess to) I shouldn't have to be a libertarian. It's kind of like, I care more about what my kids do than what your kids do.

The Republican claim to be more in favor of "States Rights" is a political ploy dating back to the Mitchell Plan of the early 1970s, when the Republicans began actively recruiting Southern Democrats afraid that their party was going to be overrun and taken over by "them."

I know a bunch of people who claim to be libertarians. Some of them are just unwilling to admit they are Republicans. The rest of them recognize that the Republicans claim to be a bunch of things using libertarian terms, but have some very strange interpretations on how they mean it. The Republicans claim to be for less government, yet simply shift the growth of government into different areas. They claim to be fiscally responsible, but consistently practice the voodoo economics of cutting taxes in anticipation of fantasy revenue growth - and now we've got an entire little war brewing off-budget. Morons please note - I did not say unnecessary war. I just said said war.

PornoDoggy · 02-24-2003, 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by cluck
They all suck. Socialist anarchist over here. Vote green if you want some common sense.

Yes ... problem is, a Green vote is just as good as a Republican vote.

Big Monkie · 02-24-2003, 09:51 PM

Well of course they are. As others here have noted, its not just repubs, but i do find them to be the worlds biggest hypocrites.
They talk about freedom and getting the govt out of peoples lives, but look at what they do. What they really mean is getting the govt out of THEIR lives, not everybody elses.
They talk about how people should have freedom to drink alcohol and smoke nicotine, but anyone smoking a joint (or other drugs they dont approve of) needs to be locked up in a cage.
They talked about clinton being a draft dodger but say nothing of numerous repubs doing the same, including bush being a deserter!
They talked about clinton/gore lying, but i cant remember any politicians blatently lying as much as the bush administration. When dubya lies, they always excuse it by saying he just made a mistake.
They talk about cutting spending, but look at what they do. Whether its reagan or bush, they go right along with record spending. Combined with their tax cuts for the rich, its no surprise we have huge deficits again.
They talk about compassion, but, haha you know the rest.
I could go on, but why bother. This is one of the major reasons i always vote against repubs, they are major league hypocrites and cannot be trusted. Not that any politicians can be trusted, they are all con artists, but repubs are the worst of the worst.

JeremySF · 02-24-2003, 10:46 PM

I'm afraid I agree. If anyone thinks the government is smaller now than it was four years ago is either smoking crack or living in Afghanistan.

Quote:

Originally posted by PornoDoggy

The Republicans claim to be for less government, yet simply shift the growth of government into different areas.

kevinl · 02-25-2003, 02:58 AM

One thing that I would hope even die-hard democrats and republicans would agree to is to allow third party candidates into the debate process.
Allowing a monopoly by both parties stifles what America should stand for most and that is a fair and open democratic process. It is now a monopoly that allow only two parties to run everything and who BOTH need some true competition from other parties with unique agendas.

thewebgarage · 02-25-2003, 03:18 AM

I love the idea of dem imposing on economic liberties. The republicans have sky rocketed the deficit. And lets not forget they are the ones increasing spending.

If your in this industry you should mostly be concerned with your civil liberties. And people in power with strong religous convictions that find a naked breast obscene. lets not forget that the law leaves obscenity up too community standards.

And while I'm ranting. As a liberal. Why not have a tax code that taxes for each dollar spent. that means everything you buy and everything a company buys. If you dont want to spend too much on taxes all you have to do is not buy anything.

Oh yeah. being a liberal I think low income people shouldnt have to spend too much on taxes. let me define that as people under 30,000 year.

Mr.Fiction · 02-25-2003, 04:05 AM

Harry Browne, the Libertarian candidate for president in 2000, has said in at least once that he thinks Bush's administration is worse than Clinton's was. That tells you something is fucked up. In theory, Libertarians should lean more Republican, but both parties are totally fucked up right now.

In 2000, neither party offered any candidate for high office that got people really excited. Republicans like Bush because he's not a Democrat. Democrats liked Gore because he wasn't a Republican.

People loved Reagan and Clinton, but who else in the last 20 years have they been excited about?

In 2000, I think McCain had a chance to be a president of the people, Republican or Democrat. Instead, he was totally undermined by the Republican establishment because he thinks for himself too much. The right wingers wanted someone who would stay in line and not compromise their grand plan, whatever the fuck it was at the time. The fact that McCain supported campaign finance reform really hurt him with the money people in the Republican party, even though it would have made him stronger with people. The sad fact is, the money people matter more than the voters early in the election cycle. Bush's people had more money and they were willing to fuck McCain, a war hero, over to win the primaries.

We'll never know what McCain could have accomplished as president.

McCain it a bit far right for me personally, but at least I respect what he has done in his life and I believe that he is willing to think for himself, regardless of which party it pisses off.

LiveDose · 02-25-2003, 04:16 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by thewebgarage
And while I'm ranting. As a liberal. Why not have a tax code that taxes for each dollar spent. that means everything you buy and everything a company buys. If you dont want to spend too much on taxes all you have to do is not buy anything.

Right that will be quite a boost to the ecomony...

JeremySF · 02-26-2003, 02:37 PM

I agree on pretty much all points, save for McCain being too far right. I think he would have made an excellent president.

Quote:

Originally posted by Mr.Fiction
Harry Browne, the Libertarian candidate for president in 2000, has said in at least once that he thinks Bush's administration is worse than Clinton's was. That tells you something is fucked up. In theory, Libertarians should lean more Republican, but both parties are totally fucked up right now.

In 2000, neither party offered any candidate for high office that got people really excited. Republicans like Bush because he's not a Democrat. Democrats liked Gore because he wasn't a Republican.

People loved Reagan and Clinton, but who else in the last 20 years have they been excited about?

In 2000, I think McCain had a chance to be a president of the people, Republican or Democrat. Instead, he was totally undermined by the Republican establishment because he thinks for himself too much. The right wingers wanted someone who would stay in line and not compromise their grand plan, whatever the fuck it was at the time. The fact that McCain supported campaign finance reform really hurt him with the money people in the Republican party, even though it would have made him stronger with people. The sad fact is, the money people matter more than the voters early in the election cycle. Bush's people had more money and they were willing to fuck McCain, a war hero, over to win the primaries.

We'll never know what McCain could have accomplished as president.

McCain it a bit far right for me personally, but at least I respect what he has done in his life and I believe that he is willing to think for himself, regardless of which party it pisses off.

02-24-2003, 05:03 PM	#1
JeremySF Confirmed User Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: San Francisco Posts: 1,236	Are Republicans full of shit? I'm a libertarian, who more often than not votes republican. As I see it, Democrats want impose on your economic liberties, while it seems that many republicans want to impose on your civil liberties (even though they run on a platform that is opposed to big government and supports states' rights). So what the hell happens to republicans once they get elected?? In 1999, Bush said he supported states' rights on medical marijuana. Moreover, who would have thought they could push through the patriot act (although with a name like the Patriot Act, you could probably legalize crack). Bush appoints an arch enemy of civil rights, John Asscraft, as attorney general. So what's the deal? Republicans talk the talk, but are they afraid to walk the walk? In short, are they full of shit?? October 20, 1999 The Dallas Morning News Bush backs states' rights on marijuana He opposes medical use but favors local control By Susan Feeney WASHINGTON - Gov. George Bush said he backs a state's right to decide whether to allow medical use of marijuana, a position that puts him sharply at odds with Republicans on Capitol Hill. "I believe each state can choose that decision as they so choose," the governor said recently in Seattle in response to a reporter's question. Chuck Thomas, spokesman for the Marijuana Policy Project, a medical marijuana lobbying group, praised Mr. Bush as "courageous" and "consistent on states' rights. I would hope he would be an example for Republicans in Congress." Aides said Mr. Bush does not support legalizing marijuana for medical use. But his position supporting state self-determination opens the door to medical marijuana use in some places. President Clinton and most Republican lawmakers, by contrast, oppose all state medical marijuana legalization laws, saying they could lead to abuse. But Mr. Clinton - in a move philosophically in tune with Mr. Bush - has said Republicans in Congress went too far in seeking to block the District of Columbia's medical marijuana ballot initiative, which won 69 percent support last year. The president recently vetoed the district's $4.7 billion budget approved by Congress, in part because of a provision to overturn the medical marijuana law. "For us, that's an issue of local control," of not "micromanaging local government," said White House spokesman Jake Siewert. The veto was not about the merits of the issue, he said. Among the Republicans leading the charge against the district's law are GOP House leaders and Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, a Bush supporter and chairwoman of the District of Columbia Appropriations Subcommittee. The district should not be "a haven for marijuana use, even for medicinal purposes," Ms. Hutchison said on the Senate floor. "I don't think we should take an illegal drug and allow it to be legalized in our capital city." Alaska, Arizona, California, Nevada, Oregon and Washington have approved medical marijuana laws, giving the issue prominence in key Western states. Mr. Bush, campaigning for president in Seattle on Saturday, told reporters he felt certain that such a move was "not going to happen in Texas." The state has no direct referendums or voter initiatives. Although addressing the states' rights issue, Mr. Bush didn't comment directly on the District of Columbia issue. His position of opposing the medical marijuana but saying states should decide is unique among presidential contenders, Mr. Thomas said. Staff writer Wayne Slater in Austin contributed to this report. __________________ ICQ: 176050593 / AIM: JerSF2000 "Love is the answer - but while you're waiting for the answer sex raises some pretty good questions." --------------------------------------------- Last edited by JeremySF; 02-24-2003 at 05:49 PM..

02-24-2003, 06:33 PM	#7
cluck Confirmed User Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: New Jersey Posts: 5,248	They all suck. Socialist anarchist over here. Vote green if you want some common sense. __________________ icq 279990726 www.mcdonalds.com <- great money making opportunity

02-24-2003, 06:59 PM	#12
Rex Confirmed User Join Date: May 2002 Location: ohio Posts: 2,241	Yes they are. __________________ I don't own RexMag anymore.

02-25-2003, 02:58 AM	#18
kevinl Confirmed User Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: US Posts: 261	One thing that I would hope even die-hard democrats and republicans would agree to is to allow third party candidates into the debate process. Allowing a monopoly by both parties stifles what America should stand for most and that is a fair and open democratic process. It is now a monopoly that allow only two parties to run everything and who BOTH need some true competition from other parties with unique agendas. __________________ kevinl

02-25-2003, 03:18 AM	#19
thewebgarage Confirmed User Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: cali Posts: 1,002	I love the idea of dem imposing on economic liberties. The republicans have sky rocketed the deficit. And lets not forget they are the ones increasing spending. If your in this industry you should mostly be concerned with your civil liberties. And people in power with strong religous convictions that find a naked breast obscene. lets not forget that the law leaves obscenity up too community standards. And while I'm ranting. As a liberal. Why not have a tax code that taxes for each dollar spent. that means everything you buy and everything a company buys. If you dont want to spend too much on taxes all you have to do is not buy anything. Oh yeah. being a liberal I think low income people shouldnt have to spend too much on taxes. let me define that as people under 30,000 year. __________________ Big Boob trades icq 265907826

02-24-2003, 05:09 PM	#2
Gutterboy So Fucking Banned Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Dis Posts: 4,751	The recent DEA raids on Medical Marijuana Clinics across the state of California tell me all I need to know about this subject.

02-24-2003, 05:45 PM	#3
MaxDent Confirmed User Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: San Francisco Posts: 851	Jeremy, It is an issue of keeping the Federal Gvt out of something that can be left up to local/state govt's to deal with. Finished mov'n out to Tres Is. Give me a call and let's hang out this week.

02-24-2003, 05:49 PM	#4
PornoDoggy Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 1,053	I'm a Democrat, and I don't think professional Republicans are any more or any less full of shit than professional Democrats. I just don't like the bobble-heads on either side. The sort of s.o.b. who can talk today about "approving the President's right (sic) to appoint judges" who was taling about "the importance of Congress's role in the judical selection process" three years ago, and do it with a straight face, for example.

02-24-2003, 06:11 PM	#6
Interlude Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: State of Denial Posts: 1,147	All politicians are full of shit.

02-24-2003, 08:13 PM	#13
Centurion Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: SeATtle Posts: 6,033	Yep..the Republicans ARE full of shit! That's why not only are their eyes brown, but so are their nuts! But then, that's the only way they could get minorities into the party!

02-24-2003, 09:51 PM	#16
Big Monkie Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Asphalt Jungle Posts: 382	Well of course they are. As others here have noted, its not just repubs, but i do find them to be the worlds biggest hypocrites. They talk about freedom and getting the govt out of peoples lives, but look at what they do. What they really mean is getting the govt out of THEIR lives, not everybody elses. They talk about how people should have freedom to drink alcohol and smoke nicotine, but anyone smoking a joint (or other drugs they dont approve of) needs to be locked up in a cage. They talked about clinton being a draft dodger but say nothing of numerous repubs doing the same, including bush being a deserter! They talked about clinton/gore lying, but i cant remember any politicians blatently lying as much as the bush administration. When dubya lies, they always excuse it by saying he just made a mistake. They talk about cutting spending, but look at what they do. Whether its reagan or bush, they go right along with record spending. Combined with their tax cuts for the rich, its no surprise we have huge deficits again. They talk about compassion, but, haha you know the rest. I could go on, but why bother. This is one of the major reasons i always vote against repubs, they are major league hypocrites and cannot be trusted. Not that any politicians can be trusted, they are all con artists, but repubs are the worst of the worst.

02-25-2003, 04:05 AM	#20
Mr.Fiction Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Free Speech Land Posts: 9,484	Harry Browne, the Libertarian candidate for president in 2000, has said in at least once that he thinks Bush's administration is worse than Clinton's was. That tells you something is fucked up. In theory, Libertarians should lean more Republican, but both parties are totally fucked up right now. In 2000, neither party offered any candidate for high office that got people really excited. Republicans like Bush because he's not a Democrat. Democrats liked Gore because he wasn't a Republican. People loved Reagan and Clinton, but who else in the last 20 years have they been excited about? In 2000, I think McCain had a chance to be a president of the people, Republican or Democrat. Instead, he was totally undermined by the Republican establishment because he thinks for himself too much. The right wingers wanted someone who would stay in line and not compromise their grand plan, whatever the fuck it was at the time. The fact that McCain supported campaign finance reform really hurt him with the money people in the Republican party, even though it would have made him stronger with people. The sad fact is, the money people matter more than the voters early in the election cycle. Bush's people had more money and they were willing to fuck McCain, a war hero, over to win the primaries. We'll never know what McCain could have accomplished as president. McCain it a bit far right for me personally, but at least I respect what he has done in his life and I believe that he is willing to think for himself, regardless of which party it pisses off.