Why I wont Vote Republican

[BigMACKenzie]

because I am not nearly the genius writer Hunter S. Thompson was I am just going to borrow/quote him from a piece written Dec. 15, 1986 in regards to Patrick Buchanan, Ronald Reagan and the Iran Contra scandal.

"In the white house, head gorgon Patrick Buchanan went wild with hatred and rage. It was all deja vu to him. He had been there before, in uglier times, when the same gang of weasels that he had called "The Nattering Nabobs of Negativism"- the pinkos and the press- had savagely destroyed another republican president, and left Buchanan unemployed. That was the Watergate scandal, a truly hideous episode in his life, a stunning repudiation of everything he had stood for. When "The Boss" turned out to have been as guilty as as street pimp all along, Buchanan felt betrayed. "It's like Sisyphus" he wrote. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain- and it rolled right back down on us." But that was back in the old days. Buchanan survived watergate by slipping through the cracks. Agnew pled nolo and nixon resigned in shame. And now Patrick is back in the White houes, as "director of communications" for another crooked president- although he really doesnt see it that way. "What liberalism and the left have in mind," he warns "is the second ruination of a republican presidency within a generation." It is an ugly prospect, and nobody can say for sure why it's happening. Why has every republican president since Abraham Lincoln been so crooked they need a brace of secret servicemen to help them screw on their pants in the morning? From Ulysses S. Grant to big bill McKinley and Warren Harding, they were all so dirty they could barely sleep at night. Even Ike had Sherman Adams. "I need him" he said. "And never mind his morals." Nixon was genetically criminal. Agnew was born wrong. Ford was so utterly corrupt that he made millions pardoning Nixon, And Reagan is beginning to take on the distinctly Spanish Characteristics of the Somoza family, formerly of Nicaragua. Buchanan is the only living human being who was deeply involved in both the Watergate scandal and this new horror, 10 years later, which he lamely tries to call "Contragate"- as if it were nothing more than some kind of overzealous slippage into True Patriotism that could have only been commited fot the right reasons. Which is not true. there is a lot more to this twisted Iranian Transaction than some game of capture the flag at a military academy that somehow got out of control. Buchanan is in trouble on this one, and by groundhog day he will be gone, once again, from the white house- seeking work in the private sector, along with current boss Donald Reagan. They are both expendable at this point, and neither one will need food stamps when they finally go over the side. Regan will go back to Wall Street, and Patrick will be back on TV, cursing the press and the lintheads for $1,000 a day. Adm. Poindexter and Col. North will be sharing a cell at one of the nicer federal prisons, and Dutch will retire to the sky ranch above Santa Barbara with his wife and dog and probably Michael Deaver, who will soon be sucked into the maw of the federal witness protection program and will need a reliable sponsor for his new way of life as a wood-chopper."

The key question here of course being "Why has every republican president since Abraham Lincoln been so crooked they need a brace of secret servicemen to help them screw on their pants in the morning?". I love conservatives, realize we need them and value their contributions to society. The above question though is why I will never vote republican/ for the conservative candidate.

[rn79870]

I read an interesting comment today about how, typically, military men make the worst presidents, and ironically, lawyers from Illinois make the best. Now, that's food for thought.

[confedup]

Damn Republicans......Are these people members of the Republican party too?

http://www.boycottliberalism.com/Scandals.htm

[AZhitman]

I actually got the opportunity to see Dr. Thompson speak when I was in college. Brilliant writer and a great entertanier.

However, I'm not sure I'd base any important decisions on his advisement, given his nearly life-long history of mind-altering substance abuse...

Rumor has it he was a Conservative before he lost all those brain cells.

[96Qowner]

The key question here of course being "Why has every republican president since Abraham Lincoln been so crooked they need a brace of secret servicemen to help them screw on their pants in the morning?". I love conservatives, realize we need them and value their contributions to society. The above question though is why I will never vote republican/ for the conservative candidate.

LOL, ok, I'm going to assume you're not joking, and I'm going to assume that you sincerely don't know of any Democratic Presidents that were considered "crooked".

You might look into Lyndon Johnson, for instance.

Caro nails it all. He chronicles the evolution of an attention-demanding youth from the Texas hill country into a seasoned congressman who would abandon his ardent espousal of the New Deal as soon as it ceased to be expedient. The dirty details begin with college elections that earn young Lyndon a reputation as a crook and a liar; Caro goes on to unravel financial shenanigans of impressive ingenuity. Johnson's consuming desire to get ahead and his political genius "unencumbered by philosophy or ideology" are staggering. The White House, Great Society, and Vietnam lie ahead when the main narrative closes in 1941, but the roots of Johnson's future achievements and tragic failures are laid bare. This biography may well stand as the best book written in the second half of the 20th century about personal ambition inextricably linked with historic change. --Wendy Smith

http://www.amazon.com/Path-Pow...29453

Or John Kennedy, whose father actually WAS a crook, making his starting fortune as a booze smuggler, and later using his influence to get Daley to rig the elections in Chicago to make sure JFK won Illinois. He appointed his brother Bobby as Attorney General and they both used the office to hurt their enemies.

Was Nixon Robbed?

http://www.slate.com/id/91350/

We all know about Clinton and the way he used the Arkansas National Guard.

Carter was clean.

Need we go all the way back to Truman?

So this is why, in your learned opinion, you won't vote for a Republican? Okie dokie, whatever excuse you need.

[Cold_Zero]

We all know about Clinton and the way he used the Arkansas National Guard.

And the use of State Troopers. Ask Vince Foster and Ron Brown what they think of the Clintons.

[WDRacing]

Two things....

1, Hunter S is the friggin man and I personally miss him dearly.

2, 98% of all politicians are corrupt cocksvckers...anyone that says the Republicans are anymore corrupt or shady then the Democrats is freely admitting that he actually has NO idea what he is talking about. We are in this position because our leadership as a whole is a laughing stock at best. Every Senator in office right now will fail a Poly if asked the right questions. For instance...do you route funding for your own personal interest?

The article was a great read though, as are all of Dr. Thompson's collective works.

[BigMACKenzie]

I actually got the opportunity to see Dr. Thompson speak when I was in college. Brilliant writer and a great entertanier.

However, I'm not sure I'd base any important decisions on his advisement, given his nearly life-long history of mind-altering substance abuse...

Rumor has it he was a Conservative before he lost all those brain cells.

I have a fair track record with mind altering but I would hardly call his or my exp. as abuse...and my main point here WD was that while most politicians are corrupt, %100 of the candidates put forward by the republican party that have won the presidential election have been as crooked as the day is long. Elliot Spitzer was a "corrupt" democrat (although technicly we ousted him for being a pervert, not corrupt, but I will throw you a bone and call it corruption of one form or another) and so were many others, but we dont have nearly the commitment to fraudulent, selfish behavior that our republican presidents have had. And Mr. Thompson is a personal hero of mine, as a journalist, a writer and as a person. "I don't like to advocate Drugs, insanity or violence to others, its just worked so well for me"

[AZhitman]

1) I would hardly call his or my exp. as abuse...

2) %100 of the candidates put forward by the republican party that have won the presidential election have been as crooked as the day is long.

3) we dont have nearly the commitment to fraudulent, selfish behavior that our republican presidents have had.

1) Ummm, apparently you don't know as much about him as you think you do. When a person descends into multi-drug ingestion over a period of days, even weeks, as Dr. Thompson did, it's abuse.

2) Really? Care to list them and their transgressions? Let's start with Bush Sr. Then let's hear about Reagan. Then you can tell me about Ford.

3) See #2. For every "fraudulent, selfish, crooked behavior" (your words) you come up with, I'll be glad to counter with a Dem whose committed similar offenses.

Interestingly, none of that even matters. Just as it would be ignorant of me to say, "Obama is a gangster thug because all Black men are gangster thugs", it's equally retarded to claim the current GOP candidate will commit fraudulent acts because all prior GOP candidates have committed fraudulent acts."

Both statements are false, ignorant and uninformed.

[rn79870]

This brings to mind a quote attributed to Plato

“Those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished by being governed by those who are dumber.”

Why is it that all politicians think we are too dumb to see through their shenanigance?

[srellim234]

Because the American sheep keep voting for the same guys.

[confedup]

Damn Republicans......Are these people members of the Republican party too?

http://www.boycottliberalism.com/Scandals.htm

There are maybe one or two more Democrats that have had an issue with the law. Not sure where you can look to find who and what....

[BigMACKenzie]

okay to be clear: This isnt another "Democrats are shining angels and will save us all" thread. Right now democrats suck, and are just as responsible for the mess we are in now as anyone else in this country. Also, the most corrupt democrat is just as filthy dirty as any corrupt republican. My point here (for the second time?) was more along the lines of the %100 scumbag rating of all republican presidents. still haven't heard anything about that (Prob bc its a undefendable position) and now for some point defending.

1.) The AMA's definition of substance abuse as per DSM-IV (Diagnostics and statistics manual of mental disorders)

A. A maladaptive pattern of substance use leading to clinically significant impairment or distress, as manifested by one (or more) of the following, occurring within a 12-month period: 1. Recurrent substance use resulting in a failure to fulfill major role obligations at work, school, or home (e.g., repeated absences or poor work performance related to substance use; substance-related absences, suspensions or expulsions from school; neglect of children or household) 2. Recurrent substance use in situations in which it is physically hazardous (e.g., driving an automobile or operating a machine when impaired by substance use) 3. Recurrent substance-related legal problems (e.g., arrests for substance-related disorderly conduct 4. Continued substance use despite having persistent or recurrent social or interpersonal problems caused or exacerbated by the effects of the substance (e.g., arguments with spouse about consequences of intoxication, physical fights)

So according to the AMA Mr. Thompson, a successful career journalist was NOT a substance abuser. Even if you go by the old school/AA substance abuse symptoms i.e problems at work or home, interfering with social activities, causing problems with friends or family he is not a substance abuser. Did he do lots of drugs? yes, a great variety and quantity. Was it a cause of concern? No, he led a fully functional and inferring from his writing I would say a full life. now I know I am in the minority here (well anywhere when it comes to this topic lol) but I know the difference between the legal drugs our doctors prescribe us and the illegal drugs out govt. says are to never enter our bodies (mostly $$$, lawyers, lobbyists and what ppl say god says about them). But do you really think his "habits" (I don't believe he was an addict in the strictest sense of the term, merely an affinity for being sideways and upside down on a daily basis (which sounds like a cop out for addiction but there is a major diff between that and someone who is physically, mentally, or chemically addicted to something) scrambled his mind enough to where you doubt his judgment in any and every situation?

2.) Please dont use the "well that wasnt so bad, what else you got, something "serious" I hope" defense here. in the OP there was at least one reason for each of the people given as to why they belong in the stockades to be beaten with reeds for turning their back on the country they swore to defend. Give me a hard/interesting one like Ulysses S. Grant or Warren G. Harding ?

Again my goal here is not to unfairly slam the conservatives here, hell James Buchanan was so gd dirty we couldn't clean him up with a years supply of bleach, steel wool and a fire hose. corrupt politicians should be led out into the street and shot like rabid stray dogs, instead we are finger pointing and name calling.

[96Qowner]

My point here (for the second time?) was more along the lines of the %100 scumbag rating of all republican presidents. still haven't heard anything about that

And for the second time, I will point out that the qualifier "republican" does not apply to any logical analysis. If you choose to believe that all Presidents are/were scumbags, by all means do so. To leave out Democrats makes your declaration look ignorant.

I prefer to believe that all Presidents are NOT scumbags, but to each his own.

[BigMACKenzie]

And for the second time, I will point out that the qualifier "republican" does not apply to any logical analysis. If you choose to believe that all Presidents are/were scumbags, by all means do so. To leave out Democrats makes your declaration look ignorant.

I prefer to believe that all Presidents are NOT scumbags, but to each his own.

how does republican not applyt to logical analysis? how do you divide up and differentiate politicians anymore? are you still voting Whig? I mean if you were president before the republican party was formed... btw calling me ignorant only makes you look more so when you have no base for your arguments. While I find your rose colored glasses to be cute and enjoy that they match your lipstick and fingernail polish they are not an effective reading tool. If you cant face the reality of politics in this country go play with the kids in gen chat. and I didn't leave out democrats sir, in fact the last thing I said in my last post was that Buchanan was a dirty A-hole and should have been flogged with reeds and run out of town on a rail. I guess I should have known better than to expect discussion out of someone like you on this kind of subject. Instead of reading and thinking you shove your head in the sand and hum loudly while saying the same thing over and over. Also I will go out on a limb and say it: f*** what your heard, William Jefferson Clinton was a kick @$$ president with two very successful terms as HMFIC and barely a protein stain on the lovely sundress of his career. a goofball with a saxophone? maybe, but corrupt and evil? hardly. I know I have been around the block a lot less than you guys but I dont remember anything but good times and party hats when he was in office. and I know some of you guys are militarty or ex-military but to be honest the defense budget doesn't effect me, and we still kicked @$$ in armed conflicts back then WITHOUT offending the whole world and pissing on the shoes of the UN and every G8 nation. oh wait, im sorry, our soggy old roomates the BRITS were with us all the way. good thing we have some of the largest proliferator of slavery, rape, pillaging and imperialism to help us fight the good fight sorry to get a little bitter here but I was hoping for some discussion and not just "NO WAY DEMOCRATS ARE PHUCKED UP TOO!!!!"

[96Qowner]

While I find your rose colored glasses to be cute and enjoy that they match your lipstick and fingernail polish they are not an effective reading tool. If you cant face the reality of politics in this country go play with the kids in gen chat

Wipe your nose, son. That sort of language doesn't earn you much respect from this guy.

[AZhitman]

I asked a question.

You commented as if you knew something we didn't, and you're ignoring my questions (conveniently numbered for you).

Here's your quote, in case you forgot what you wrote:

%100 of the candidates put forward by the republican party that have won the presidential election have been as crooked as the day is long.

And my response was:

Really? Care to list them and their transgressions? Let's start with Bush Sr. Then let's hear about Reagan. Then you can tell me about Ford.

I'll wait...

As for your first point, being able to hold down a job does not absolve someone from being considered an addict.

Hell, I WORKED in [what was then] the largest chemical dependency rehab facilities in the US for 2 years as a night counselor, and 99% of my clients were wealthy and functional... Mostly rock stars, athletes and assorted famous idiots.

Still addicts. Sorry.

Let me correct you on a couple nitpicks while we're at it:

"Diagnostics and statistics" is actually Diagnotic and Statistical - You'd know that if you used the DSM.

% goes after the number, such as "100% of your statement is false."

So as to not appear COMPLETELY negative, I agree with your assessment of how we should treat corrupt pols. And DollyMan pwns.

[BigMACKenzie]

wasn't really in need of any from you sir...I know im caustic and nasty some times but really thats how I see things. You can choose to ignore the state of things that have been and the state of things as they are now but ignoring them changes the actual status %0.00. So sail the good ship mediocrity and enjoy the ride, but I seek to change and improve. The people feeling me in this thread understand that I say this, and everything else as constructive criticism. That hardly every member of the republican party is corrupt or a degenerate (*gasp* dare I say... the minority?) which boggles me even further as the only ppl you put to the front of the line to lead are borderline criminally insane

[BigMACKenzie]

give me a day and I will come back with my list on all the presidents and their heinous crimes? I figure I have an audience and should have all my i's dotted and t's crossed, at least after your last post/audit lol yeah I was trying to change the wording in the DSM definition and had to conjugate and whatnot and I ended up changing more than I meant to, you is correct sir. And now we are entering into the diff between Addict and Abuser. its one of those square rectangle deals. I think this is one of those things we will have to agree to disagree on. Tell you what, you don't try and convince me I abuse drugs and I wont ever try and convince you to try any? lol I think would work swimmingly.

Edit: sorry about the double post and do you really say that his judgment is eternally suspect because of the ingestion of foreign substances? abuser/addict/whatever aside I understand you don't want to take voting advice from some random dope fiend but this is Dr. Thompson we are talking about!

Edit #2 So you know I love you guys for talking about this with me far more than I could ever dislike you for your views. We are all one big discordant mildly dysfunctional family, and still way better than a lot of families ppl get stuck with IRL. after I punch you in the face I will pick you up off the ground, I know you would do the same for me lol well some of you

[rn79870]

Here's why I won't vote Republican for a while.

[AZhitman]

give me a day and I will come back with my list on all the presidents and their heinous crimes?

No. You sounded confident in your "100%". For people who are math-challenged, that means ALL. In which case you would be wrong.

Your credibility is now shot. Fail.

No need to research something AFTER the fact.

Tell you what, you don't try and convince me I abuse drugs and I wont ever try and convince you to try any? lol I think would work swimmingly.

Fair enough. Although I don't need anyone's encouragement there, I'm too busy enjoying reality as it is.

I understand you don't want to take voting advice from some random dope fiend but this is Dr. Thompson we are talking about!

Not impressed. Great writer, but if he were a great musician / painter / athlete / dancer would you feel the same?

My sister gets her political views from Jon Bon Jovi. Dumb.

after I punch you in the face I will pick you up off the ground, I know you would do the same for me lol well some of you

Nah, that's movie crap. I'd curbstomp ya.

[AZhitman]

while most politicians are corrupt, %100 of the candidates put forward by the republican party that have won the presidential election have been as crooked as the day is long.

Just so no one forgets this.

Sorry MAC, dumb statement.

[srellim234]

AZ- speaking of credibility and backing things up.....I'm still waiting for you to supply the facts I asked for in the 'Another politician indicted" thread. You were very quick to be 100% sure in blaming the liberal media for not calling them "raids" when going after Hillary's Whitewater documents. I asked for examples to back your statement that raids were not called raids because I tried to find them using multiple search engines and couldn't find any to back you up.

To quote YOU: "You sounded confident 100%.....Your credibility is now shot."

[AZhitman]

AZ- speaking of credibility and backing things up.....I'm still waiting for you to supply the facts I asked for in the 'Another politician indicted" thread. You were very quick to be 100% sure in blaming the liberal media for not calling them "raids" when going after Hillary's Whitewater documents. I asked for examples to back your statement that raids were not called raids because I tried to find them using multiple search engines and couldn't find any to back you up.

To quote YOU: "You sounded confident 100%.....Your credibility is now shot."

Did the media call it a raid? No.

You ARE correct in your assertion that if the documents were "handed over", there would have been nothing worthy of being misconstrued as a "raid"...

Again, you are correct, and I misspoke.

April 25, 19978th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, overruling a lower court, says the White House must turn over subpoenaed notes to Starr. The notes, for which the White House claimed attorney-client privilege, were taken by White House lawyers when investigators questioned the First Lady.

May 2, 1997The White House announces that it will appeal the decision on the subpoenaed notes to the Supreme Court.

June 23, 1997The Supreme Court refuses to hear the appeal, and the White House turns over the notes.

Big difference between what I said and what MAC is claiming, but I'll "stand down" given my error.

[srellim234]

Thanks. Now let's see what BigMAC comes up with..

By the way, AZ, great catch up in the Versa forum. What that guy was trying to do was really sleazy. My compliments to you.

[AZhitman]

It's like pissing on fires with nothing to drink some days.